Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on the Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances and on Gifts) (Sweden) Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

SUMMER TIME

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL

TEES (NEWPORT BRIDGE) BILL [Lords]

TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL

Orders for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 8 June.

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 8 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Links with Business and Industry

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what resources are made available to local education authorities to ensure that secondary schools are able to develop effective links with businesses.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage awareness of industry in schools.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): Resources are made available for the development of links between schools and business through a number of initiatives involving schools, local education authorities and national organisations. The Department makes direct contributions to particular projects and organisations, publishes and distributes information, and makes funding available to local education authorities for the training of teachers. Industrial and economic awareness are cross-curricular themes in the national curriculum.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that despite the excellent schemes, some of which are undoubtedly very good, there is a patchiness about the implementation of links between schools and industry so that we are in danger of producing more industrial illiterates than necessary? Against that background, and on the assumption that he agrees with what 1 say, will my hon. Friend find time to review the implementation of the


scheme to see whether there are ways to improve and to even out its performance throughout the United Kingdom in view of the need to attract the best brains into industry?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend, with his great experience in these matters, makes a serious point. We wish to see best practice become common practice, and my hon. Friend's erstwhile colleagues in the Confederation of British Industry are considering how to bring co-ordination to bear on a range of links between education and industry. However, we do not wish to dampen local enthusiasm and dynamism, which appear to be the key to success in these efforts. I am satisfied that there is much enthusiasm, but in the light of the Cadbury report, I appeal to employers to come forward in greater numbers. The schools are ready for the links and wish to see much more contact. Employers should match their enthusiasm.

Mr. Arnold: Will my hon. Friend comment on the development of the technical and vocational education initiative? My constituency of Gravesham has a programme which does a considerable amount to develop the awareness of school students of the opportunities to be found in industry. Surely we should give added emphasis to that area.

Mr. Butcher: When the initiative was first discussed there was some cynicism, which I believe has now all but evaporated. I am delighted that TVEI is being pursued with such enthusiasm, particularly by teachers. It has been a great success. In particular, it seems to "turn on" certain categories of pupil who may find the traditional curriculum less exciting than they would wish. A spend of some £900 million over 10 years shows the kind of cash support that we are prepared to give to this significant breakthrough.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister agree that there is a great deal more to education than links with business? Education is for life, and must be broad and tolerant. There is a grave danger—[Interruption.] The laughter from Conservative Members suggests that they do not agree with what I am saying, but it is very important. The links with life must be broad, tolerant and educational, not reduced to the distinctly narrow viewpoint of the Conservative party, which is causing such chaos in our education system.

Mr. Butcher: There is no conflict between our traditional desire for the education of the whole man—or the whole person—and the need to establish links with the world of commerce and industry. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that someone who leaves our school system without the basic capability of standing on his or her own feet is not a whole person. Our main priority must be to give people that first capability.

Teachers (Recruitment)

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress his Department is making in promoting teaching as a career.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Our approach, through national publicity and the work of the teaching as a career unit, is creating a positive recruitment climate. This is reflected in the record numbers in recent years applying for

teacher training places, and in the very high response to our recent advertising campaign, to which there were more than 10,000 responses.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my hon. Friend confirm that teaching is an extremely important, valuable and good career, but, that while the Government are taking positive steps to encourage people to adopt it others tend to emphasise only the negative aspects? Should they not take note of the words of Walter levers, the incoming president of the National Association of Head Teachers, who said recently that negative attitudes were themselves demoralising?

Mrs. Rumbold: I agree. The incoming president of the association was right in saying that negative attitudes do not help the general image of teachers. Conservative Members have a high regard for the teaching profession. We consider it an honourable profession that is executed extraordinarily well by the vast majority of teachers. I am surprised that teachers do not recognise how easily they could regain their authority by showing how competently they are managing the changes in our education system.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that in every school, day visits by pupils and particularly longer adventure residential journeys in this country are a valuable means of irrigating learning? Does she accept my view, based on 14 years' experience, that such activities are especially valuable in the case of reluctant pupils, and will she and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State review the mess-up that they have made and change the rules so that willing teachers can pursue those activities to the benefit of their pupils and of education? More teachers will then stay in our schools, and more will be attracted to teaching—the reverse of the result that the current terrible arrangements are producing.

Mrs. Rumbold: I ask the hon. Gentleman to study carefully the recommendations in the Education Reform Act 1988 on charging for extra-mural activities. Those recommendations allow for all such activities to continue, and indeed follow exactly the changes recommended to the Department—which was not originally minded to make any changes—by local education authorities.

Mr. Kirkhope: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are some difficulties in achieving a balance between teachers wishing to go into one specialty or another? Can she say a word or two about how that imbalance will be remedied?

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken considerable steps towards ensuring that people are attracted to areas of shortage by means of bursaries, so that they will enter teaching and take it up as a career. That has been very successful. The most recent bursaries offered to those wishing to teach chemistry has resulted in an 8 per cent. increase in the number wishing to enter the profession.

Mr. Straw: The evidence of the recent Gallup poll in the Daily Telegraph shows a 40 per cent. drop in support for the Conservative party among teachers since the last general election and that four in 10 of our most experienced teachers wish to leave the profession. Does not that confirm the verdict of the Daily Express
that the tolerance of parents—and of voters—
on the Government's education record


is almost exhausted"?
Why do the Minister and the Secretary of State continue to deny that there is still a serious crisis in respect of our teaching force?

Mrs. Rumbold: The polls to which the hon. Gentleman refers reflect the attitudes of the people who are invited to respond to them. Teachers' actions are reflected by the independent interim advisory committee's report, which reaffirms that the number of people leaving the teaching profession in 1989 is only 1 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult for my right hon. and hon. Friends to take a lecture on teacher recruitment when it was the last Labour Government who, between 1974 and 1979, devalued teachers' pay by as much as 12 per cent.?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the present Government, teachers' pay has increased in the order of 40 per cent.

Student Loans

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implementation of his White Paper on student loans.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans for top-up loans for students.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): We are continuing to hold constructive discussions with a range of financial institutions about their possible participation in the administration of top-up loans. My right hon. Friend will announce our conclusions in due course.

Mr. Field: As the Government have been collecting information in America, can the Minister tell the House the average size of debt of American students at the end of their courses and the dropout rate, and how both compare with the British scene?

Mr. Jackson: It is not possible to make a comparison with the British scene because we do not yet have student loans, but if the hon. Gentleman studies the White Paper he will find that the figures of comparative indebtedness at the end of the course of study for the different countries which have student loans—as just about every other country does—show that total borrowing by students when our system is fully operational will be considerably less then is already the case in many other countries.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome the fact that there are 266 more students in higher education than there were 10 years ago? [Interruption.] Does he agree that they are better provided for in terms of grants than any other students in the world? Will he take note of the advice of Polonius to his son:
Neither a borrower, nor a lender be"?
What would my hon. Friend's answer have been if Polonius had given him that advice.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend, in his usual modest way, underestimates the Government's contribution to the expansion of higher education. The number of students has increased by 260,000 since we came to office. I will address the serious question put by my hon. Friend the

Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) about indebtedness in two ways— practically and philosophically. The practical answer is that credit is a fact of life. We know—there is evidence of this in the White Paper—that the use of credit spreads across all classes. We also have evidence from our survey of student income and expenditure of the substantial borrowing that students already incur. The philosophical answer is that is is important for everyone to regard higher education as a form of investment by society on behalf of the economy and of culture. That is the taxpayers' contribution. It is also investment by an individual in his own future. It affords substantial personal benefit, so there should be a reasonable personal contribution to its costs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister admit that he has already failed in the objective set out in the White Paper of finding a cost-effective scheme that the financial institutions will administer? On his own estimate of an initial cost of £120 million, and the scheme not being self-balancing until the end of the century, and given all the reports that the Government will have to find more than £500 million to subsidise the banks, is it not already clear that the loans scheme will cost the country and the Government a fortune?

Mr. Jackson: I admire the hon. Gentleman's keen speculative intelligence. I refer him to the words of the penultimate Liberal Prime Minister, "Wait and see.".

Mr. Haselhurst: Has my hon. Friend considered the particular problems of deaf students and the danger that they will get a lower standard of employment than they deserve and may therefore run into corresponding difficulties in paying off loans which might be higher as a result of their special needs?

Mr. Jackson: I should point out to my hon. Friend a feature of the loans scheme which has been much neglected by commentators upon it. The obligation to repay the loan will be related to income. That should be more than enough to take care of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Now that I have obtained and today placed in the House of Commons Library the responses that the Government refused to publish in relation to the loans White Paper, will the Minister come clean and admit what his written answer to me on 15 February kept hidden—that those responses are overwhelmingly in opposition to the Government's proposals? Bearing in mind the reports which the Minister has on his desk and which show that it would cost £530 million even to induce the banks to consider operating his scheme, will not even he now concede that these unworkable and profoundly damaging proposals should be dropped, or does he intend to go on being more economical with the truth than he proposes to be with taxpayers' money?

Mr. Jackson: I have here the Labour party's summary of the responses. One third of those responses agreed with the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) in supporting a graduate tax.

Grant-maintained Status

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many inquiries and how many applications have so far been received from schools considering grant-maintained status.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): To date, I have approved 15 schools for grant-maintained status. A further 32 schools are currently embarked on the application procedures. Many more schools have expressed an interest.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his extremely helpful reply, but may I ask whether he is satisfied that we are doing enough to turn those inquiries into grant-maintained schools? Will he take the opportunity to comment on an education policy document issued by the Labour party, which calls for the abolition of grant-maintained schools? Does he agree that such documents should be speedily kebabed?

Mr. Baker: We now have certain proposals from the Labour party which purport to be an education policy. The Opposition want the end of grant-maintained schools. There is no question about that. They do not recognise how popular those schools are with parents and children —[Interruption.] Yes, they are popular with parents in Skegness, in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Bolton and throughout the country. The trouble with the Opposition is that when they see something up and running, all they want to do is to abolish it.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has repeatedly said that there will be no change in the financial provision for a school once it has achieved grant-maintained status but that he has now said that a further £30,000 handout of taxpayers' money will be given to all grant-maintained schools? Can he assure the House that he will also make £30,000 available to every state school in the country?

Mr. Baker: The basis of the capital funding will be the same for grant-maintained schools as for local education authority maintained schools. The amount to which the hon. Gentleman referred—up to £30,000—is intended to meet early additional expenditure which might fall on the governors of schools in preparing for grant-maintained status. Such expenditure might include advertising for staff, the introduction of financial and administrative systems and other arrangements for taking on their new responsibilities.

Mr. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State confirm yet again that an application for grant-maintained status is a further option available to parents and governors of local schools? Does not that further option which has been made available by the Conservatives compare favourably with the Labour party's policies, which would lead to the abolition of Church schools, grammar schools, secondary modern schools, city technology colleges and the assisted places scheme and would do untold damage to the independent sector? Our policies are about choice, not discussion.

Mr. Baker: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assistance in getting this legislation on the statute book. I confirm entirely what he said. The Labour party wants to destroy all the initiatives that we have taken. It wants to

undermine the national curriculum and private schools and destroy CTCs, grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. Its education policy is destruction and abolition.

Language Study

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the number of foreign languages that are currently listed under schedule 1 of the Education (National Curriculum) (Modern Foreign Language) Order 1989.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Mr. Livsey: Why is the Minister denying children the right to learn two languages, and why have the Government prevented the implementation of the Lingua programme in Britain? Is that not proof that the Conservative party is less than wholeheartedly a European party?

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. In Brussels my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State negotiated Britain's participation in a substantial part of the Lingua programme, not least post-16 vocational experience and exchange for students and for teachers who travel to Europe to learn and to extend their teaching practice. Schools are outside the EEC treaty as it was negotiated. Only 40 per cent. of our 16-year-olds are learning a foreign language. Under the national curriculum all children will learn at least one foreign language. We should concentrate on doing that and being able to walk before we run.

Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that progress is being made in the teaching of languages and that under the core curriculum further improvements will be forthcoming? The Lingua proposal is impractical in the present climate.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. No one wishes languages to be taught more urgently than we do, which is why my right hon. Friend provided in the national curriculum for all children between 11 and 16 to learn at least one foreign language.

Mr. Fatchett: Does not the Minister realise how complacent she sounds about the state of foreign language teaching? What reason of sovereignty denies our schoolchildren access to the resources that will be provided by the Lingua programme, or is it just the Prime Minister's pride that is denying children the opportunity of modern language teaching, which would enable them to deal better with the Common Market post 1992?

Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the matter, it will be interesting to know why the Labour party's proposals exclude a modern foreign language from the core curriculum.

National Curriculum (Primary Schools)

Mrs. Mahon: to ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that teachers are fully prepared to implement the national curriculum in primary schools next term.

Mrs. Rumbold: Specific grants are available for £100 million additional expenditure by local education


authorities to support introduction of the national curriculum. We have allowed schools two extra closure days for training, and the National Curriculum Council has provided advice and training materials.

Mrs. Mahon: Does the Minister realise and understand the anxiety that primary school teachers feel about the nature and pace of the curriculum change? What plans does she have to provide the extra specialist training and resources necessary so that children with special needs have access to the national curriculum? Would not the Minister be the first to condemn teachers if they acted in such an irresponsible way with such haste?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady will be satisfied to know that two extra in-service training days are being provided for primary school teachers in particular to learn about and to update themselves on the national curriculum. In addition, we have made provision for all schools to have the national curriculum documents in their hands in good time, so I hope that all primary school teachers will feel themselves ready. Some provisions will not necessarily apply to children with special needs, but we want such children to study the national curriculum from day one if they can.

Mr. Baldry: Clearly, it is vital that teachers have adequate in-service training to prepare them for the national curriculum, but is there any reason why much of that training should not take place during school holidays so as not to disrupt normal classroom activities?

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that of the 1,265 hours that a teacher is contracted to teach, the average primary school teacher spends 850 hours in lessons. If time is allowed for breaks, assembly and supervision, primary school teachers should still have 130 hours within the allocated time outside school holidays and weekends in which to do additional training.

Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that many primary school teachers will be horrified to hear the Minister's complacency this afternoon. Does she understand primary school teachers' fears that their professional integrity is being undermined by the completely haphazard way in the which the Government have introduced the core curriculum documents? How are teachers seriously to prepare, through training, for the teaching of English in September when the order has not yet been approved by the House? How are they to develop methods of monitoring and to agree ways in which English can be properly taught when the documents will not reach some schools until after the end of the summer term?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is exactly such an attitude that contributes to the demoralisation of teachers. Hearing such statements do not help. Primary school teachers are working extremely hard. Those whom I have met in the schools are looking forward with enthusiasm to the introduction of the national curriculum and are working hard to make their systems work. They appreciate that what they have been doing over the years has now been underwritten by Government action.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made with the establishment of city technology colleges.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The CTC programme is already a great success. Kingshurst opened last year, Nottingham and Teesside will open in September, and Bradford, Dartford, Gateshead and the London school for performing arts and technology will open in 1990. We have public commitments of sponsorship for a further seven colleges and more sponsors will bring us easily up to our target of 20.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of CTCs is based upon their popularity with parents, the motivation of their students and the commitment of their teachers? In evidence of that, does he agree that applications for Solihull's CTC doubled last year, it is now three and a half times over-subscribed and its teachers, despite earning salaries similar to those in the state sector, work a school day that is 25 per cent. longer than average, showing their commitment to the CTC concept and the ethos underlying that?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is correct. The colleges are proving to be popular. Indeed, he underestimates the popularity of the one in Solihull. In the first year, there were some 400 applications to go there, and in the second year, starting in September, there were some 1,200 inquiries from parents who wanted to send their children there. That clearly shows the school's popularity. I confirm that the schools operate for longer hours and take shorter holidays and that students and teachers want to work in them.

Mr. Morley: Are not the funding arrangements for CTCs dramatically different from what was originally planned and is not the contribution from the private sector a shadow of what was originally proposed? Is not the Secretary of State simply buying the schools to save his own face and are not the schools irrelevant in terms of the needs of children in modern education?

Mr. Baker: That is completely wrong. For Kingshurst, the initial contribution was £1 million. That has risen to £2 million, and the school is now on its way to a third million. Taking the programme as a whole, nearly £40 million has now been pledged by British business to this programme,
and it will meet its obligations. This is the most successful private industrial fund-raising scheme in the history of education in this country.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that far from depriving people in schools of much-needed capital investment, the Teesside city technology college is a Government investment which comes on top of a 41 per cent. increase in capital allocation for Cleveland schools this year?

Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. I do not believe that the CTCs will have a harmful effect on the schools in their surrounding areas. In the case of Solihull and Birmingham, the other schools have already changed their curriculum, have smartened up their whole approach to attracting students and are attracting more students.

Mr. Nellist: Has not the public funding of so-called city technology colleges removed public funding from other colleges of technology in cities, such as Oxford polytechnic? The Secretary of State will be aware—because he received on 12 May a letter from me about this case—that this has led, for example, to a second year geology student, Alexandra Spawls writing to 200 public figures asking each of them to lend her £10 until her course is finished so that she can complete a mandatory six-week solo mapping project on the Isle of Mull and thereby gain her degree, which her grant and help from Oxford polytechnic are insufficient to cover. Instead of fancy back-door privatisation schemes, the right hon. Gentleman should fully fund the existing student population, rather than turning them into beggars.

Mr. Baker: The increase in expenditure for polytechnics this year, in current costs, is nearly 10 per cent., and I have increased the capital allocation for the polytechnic sector this year from £50 million to £84 million.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such is the popularity of Nottingham's forthcoming CTC that I receive regularly letters from my constituents in Gedling complaining that their children do not live within the catchment area of the CTC, and they very much wish that they did?

Mr. Baker: I confirm what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that the Nottingham CTC will be as popular as the Birmingham CTC. There is now growing demand from towns and cities all over the country to have CTCs, and I suspect that we shall exceed the original target of 20.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the proposals to turn the Sylvan school in Croydon and the Haberdashers' Aske girls' school in Lewisham into CTCs are so unpopular with parents that they have voted overwhelmingly against those proposals? Does he appreciate that his refusal to accept conclusively those ballot results will reveal his support for parents' rights to be nothing more than a hollow sham?

Mr. Baker: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about Sylvan is that, as he knows, proposals for closure will be coming to me shortly and I shall decide on those proposals on their merits. As for Haberdashers' Aske, the result of the ballot shows that the majority of those voting are in favour of a CTC, and that provides a firm and clear basis on which the governors of the Haberdashers' Aske school may make a decision.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has recently received regarding the establishment of city technology colleges in London and the south-east.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am delighted to say that there is tremendous interest in the establishment of CTCs in London and the south-east. As a result, I continue to receive many representations on a number of different possibilities.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State concede that there is substantial concern among parents and teachers who might be affected by their school becoming a CTC lest their influence on the future of the school is substantially reduced? For example, Bacon school in Bermondsey, which would be entitled as an over 50-pupil school to have

five elected parents and two elected teachers, would be replaced by a school with one elected parent and one elected teacher. What does the right hon. Gentleman say to the charge that that is entirely inconsistent with the local management of schools, in which I thought be believed?

Mr. Baker: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make it clear whether or not he supports the Bacon initiative in his locality, despite his repeated support for a national campaign against CTCs. I know that the governors of Bacon school are considering the possibility of moving to a site in docklands with a substantial amount of industrial sponsorship. That seems to be a remarkably attractive option, but I shall of course await the outcome of their deliberations.

Mr. Maples: In correcting the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), my right hon. Friend showed that he is aware that the parents and children of Haberdashers' Aske schools voted by a substantial majority in a joint ballot last week in favour of a proposal to convert to a CTC. Is he aware that this was in the face of concerted and orchestrated opposition by the Labour-controlled Inner London education authority to stop the ballot taking place? As the parents, teachers and governors have now voted in favour of this proposal, will he join me in hoping that the ILEA will now honour the verdict of the majority?

Mr. Baker: I know that this was a hard-fought case and that there was considerable organised opposition to it. But, as I have made clear, the result of that ballot showed that the majority of those voting want a change and that provides a firm and clear basis on which the governors of the school can make a decision. I hope that they will make that decision very quickly indeed.

Careers Education

Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given in the current year to secondary schools with regard to careers education.

Mr. Butcher: The Department's publication "National Curriculum—From Policy to Practice", published this year, emphasises the place of careers education and guidance within the whole curriculum. The National Curriculum Council is considering the place of personal and social education—and it sees careers education and guidance as an important part of this—in the same context.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that the entire education world in our country believes that the shortage of teachers is now steadily developing to crisis point, such that the Select Committee on Education will be making a report on this shortly? Does he also realise that the morale of teachers is so low owing to constant Government attacks on it that 40 per cent. of them would like to leave the service immediately? What kind of advice will he give to secondary school pupils about entering the teaching profession when the Government have played such havoc with the profession that people want to leave it en masse?

Mr. Butcher: Instead of peddling alarm and despondency the hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of a number of studies of this matter. It is not as simple as he states. Indeed, I vigorously deny a number of


his assertions. I met careers guidance teachers three weeks ago and discussed their interest in ensuring the place of careers guidance within the national curriculum and was able to reassure them that this would continue.

Deaf Children

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many deaf children have a statement of their special educational needs according to the Education Act 1981.

Mr. Butcher: In January 1988 the total number of children in England with a statement of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981 was 138,067. We do not have separate figures for deaf children.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Minister aware of the shortcomings for children with special educational needs of the statement process as spelled out by the National Deaf Children's Society report "A Mockery of Needs"? Is the Minister aware—I am sure he is—that there is a need for extra resources for local authorities to ensure that all children with statements of special educational needs have access to the national curriculum? If he does not give those extra resources quickly to local authorities, will it not be just another example demonstrating that this Government simply do not care about children with special educational needs?

Mr. Butcher: No, Sir, that is not so, whether measured by the amount of effort that has gone into the education of children with special needs and particular disabilities, or in terms of hard cash. In 1979–80 about £249 million was spent on maintained special schools. Our plans this year provide for £630 million at a time when there has been a reduction in the number of pupils in this category of 30,000. So there has been a real increase of 28 per cent. I have read the National Deaf Children's Society document. I stay in contact with this group, mainly through its Coventry branch. I find a lot in the document to support, in particular, the wishes of parents to be more closely involved. Not only I but the Department of Health will be responding shortly.

Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain party of the country, there have been disputes about whether speech therapy is the responsibility of the district health authority or the education authority? Can my hon. Friend update the House on that?

Mr. Butcher: I am aware that over a period of time, the role of speech therapy, both for the overall health of the child and for the educational capability of the child, has exercised the minds of many. I cannot tell my hon. Friend today precisely what the outcome of that considerable discussion will be, but I will write to him as soon as there is a clearer statement to be made.

Mr. Ashley: Now that the pressure on school budgets is so great that it is blighting the lives of deaf children and their future careers, will the Minister accept that it is his job to ensure that local education authorities have both the freedom and the resources to help those children?

Mr. Butcher: I dealt with the very generous provision for those categories of disability in my earlier response. May I also reassure the right hon. Gentleman on a point about which the whole House is concerned—the question

of supporting the teachers themselves in the particular skills required, whether the children are in maintained integrated schools or in special schools. On that front alone, we are providing this year £1·6 million for the training of teachers of children with hearing impairments and in 1990–91, we propose to provide £1·7 million. I hope that the earlier figures that I gave will give the right lion. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Warren: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening, I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Warren: Will my right hon. Friend make known to the Government of China today the utter revulsion of the British people at the killing and unwarranted brutality of Chinese troops in the streets and squares of Beijing and especially at the awful actions taken against the students? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible for us to continue normal relations with China while this dreadful brutality continues and will she take action on that?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Everyone who witnessed those scenes on television was afflicted with utter revulsion and outrage at what had happened and at the indiscriminate firing on people who were asking only for democratic rights. It shows that Communism stands ready to impose its will by force on innocent people and we must take that into account in our views on defence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be making a statement shortly on the Government's response. I agree with my hon. Friend that, clearly, normal business with the Chinese authorities cannot continue. Our first and greatest concern has to be for the people of Hong Kong, whose confidence will be very badly shaken. Our commitment to a secure future for them is as strong as ever and we shall be looking urgently at what can be done to provide them with some reassurance.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree that the memory and meaning of one unarmed young man standing in front of a column of tanks in Beijing yesterday will remain with the British people long after the present leadership in China and what they stand for have been forgotten? Will the Prime Minister make it clear that the orders to commit mass murder given by the old men clinging to power in Beijing are unequivocally and universally condemned by the people of our country? To reinforce that message, will the Prime Minister work with our European partners to bring concerted pressure on the Chinese Government to stop the killing and to respond positively to the call for freedom being made by the people of China?

The Prime Minister: We have made our views very clear. Indeed, the whole civilised world made its views very clear in response to the scenes it saw, as did Mr. Perez de


Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. China is, of course, a permanent member of the Security Council. Everyone has expressed outrage, horror and total and utter condemnation, and each country, both separately and jointly with others, is thinking of how best to demonstrate that in practical terms to the Chinese Government.

Mr. John Marshall: During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend examine the recent surveys which show that the postal services have deteriorated? Does she agree that the only way in which to improve the quality of the postal services is by the introduction of greater competition?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of some of the complaints on this matter. I agree that greater competition would be good, and we may have to consider ending the monopoly on the postal letter service, which would bring welcome competition.

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: Is the Prime Minister aware that following the recent spate of serious accidents involving dogs the people of Britain expect the Government to take some action? In view of that, will she give serious consideration to the schemes advanced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Association of District Councils?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the great concern about this matter and of some of the proposals that have been made. Although some of them are undoubtedly very interesting, they would not go to the root of the problem, which is not necessarily a question of identifying the owner of the dog but of trying to persuade people to be very responsible about their ownership.
There are already powers to control dangerous dogs. The Dogs Act 1871 provides that any member of the public can tell the police if he or she believes that any dog is dangerous. A magistrate can then issue an order for any dog to be controlled or destroyed. [Interruption.] The question is whether we need to strengthen the legislation and how we catch the people who are not being responsible about owning dogs. It is easier to pose the problem than it is to catch and severely punish the offenders.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in these difficult times with the Chinese problem the people of Hong Kong have every right to feel that the word of a Government who are willing to murder their own people is a word that may well be doubted? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for Britain at least to give Hong Kong a democratic Government and tell the Chinese Government that if they do not honour that, they will honour nothing, and that we shall not honour any pledges given to them?

The Prime Minister: Under the declaration signed with the Government of China, we are now negotiating the Basic Law and when that is complete, we are steadily introducing an increasing amount of democratic government into Hong Kong, with the view that, by the time 1997 comes, there will be an absolutely smooth changeover,

with full democracy, so that the agreement can be fully implemented—that for 50 years after 1997 the people shall have the same system as they have now, a free democratic system, with substantially the same way of life. Obviously, whatever the declaration says, the confidence of the people of Hong Kong will be very severely jolted at present, for very understandable reasons. Without that agreement, which should bring the people of Hong Kong a much better chance than they would otherwise have, 92 per cent. of the land would automatically revert to the People's Republic of China, without the associated benefits that we have negotiated for the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister's words of a moment ago will be welcome, but does she realise that, in comparison with the words of President Bush, her muted response immediately following the massacre in Peking will be regarded by many as a matter of shame? Is she aware that, in comparison with the attitude of the Portuguese Government to their citizens in Macau her complete denial of moral responsibility after 1997 for those in Hong Kong who hold British passports will be regarded by many as a matter of dishonour?

The Prime Minister: The statement that I issued said:
We are all deeply shocked by the news from Peking and appalled by the indiscriminate shooting of unarmed people. It is a reminder that, despite some recent easing of East-West tensions, a very great gulf remains between the democratic and the Communist societies. We view these events in Peking with particular concern because of our responsibility for Hong Kong—

Mr. Ashdown: Concern?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: —
and our obligation—which we share with the Chinese Government under the joint declaration—to safeguard Hong Kong's future stability and prosperity.
There were two more paragraphs which, as I said earlier, said that we were shocked and appalled at such indiscriminate killing.
The right hon. Gentleman stands up and makes a great deal of noise, but is it his only suggestion that we should accept 3·6 million people into this country regardless of the consequences?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the possibility of this problem arising was foreseen more than 20 years ago when we passed the Commonwealth immigration legislation? Would it not be quite heartless to hold out the hope to almost 4 million people that the solution to their problems lies in emigrating to the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: Currently 3·5 million people in Hong Kong hold British dependent territory citizens' passports. Since 1945 there have been 1·6 million immigrants to Britain from the New Commonwealth. I cite those figures to show the enormity of the task. Obviously some people, especially those who have worked in certain positions for the British Crown, already have preference in securing British passports.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it would not be right to suggest that 3.5 million people should automatically have the right of abode in this country.

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Duffy: Can the Prime Minister explain why the stock market remains jittery today and why sterling continues to weaken despite higher interest rates, while cuts in prime rates and a mountain of debt fail to weaken the US dollar?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that at times of great uncertainty, such as is now the case in China, money tends to go into the dollar.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many parents of British students in Beijing, of whom I am one, are extremely grateful both to the Foreign Office and to the universities, which have been assiduous in looking after those students? Is it not a source of great pride and great relief that, as far as we know, those students are being lifted out of Beijing? Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing appreciation to both the Foreign Office and the universities?

The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute both to the Foreign Office and to our ambassador in Beijing. There are only between 50 and 60 British students in and around Beijing, all of whom reached the embassy fairly quickly and are being looked after as well as is possible. It is not easy to obtain flights out of Beijing during the present troubles.

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fisher: Why will not the Prime Minister reconsider her refusal to do anything to back her condemnation of what is happening in China, or to offer practical help to the people of Hong Kong—including the Hong Kong journalist who was refused sanctuary and help by the British embassy in Beijing? Why is President Bush imposing sanctions but the right hon. Lady doing nothing?

The Prime Minister: There will be a full statement later by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will indicate in full the measures being taken. Of course, our consul is every bit as anxious to help people who have British dependent territory passports whom we regard as our responsibility but whom the Chinese regard as Chinese. We are as anxious to help them as we are to help our own people who are in Beijing, if we can get to them to help them.

Mr. Stanbrook: Despite what has been properly said about the millions of people involved, is my right hon. Friend aware that when we passed the British Nationality Act 1981 we did not expect the provisions of section 4(5) to allow certain citizens of Hong Kong the right of abode in this country to be used other than sparingly? However, would not we all be surprised to find that after eight years only seven applications out of thousands have been granted? Is there not a case for applying the section more flexibly and thus perhaps bringing some relief to Hong Kong?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that that section must be applied more flexibly. He will find that we are ready to do so. There is a great deal of difference between that greater flexibility that we are very ready to offer—understandably so—and saying that 3·5 million should have the right of permanent abode in this country.

NATO Summit

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting of NATO Heads of State and Government held in Brussels on 29 and 30 May, which I attended together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The meeting approved two documents: a declaration to mark NATO's 40th anniversary; and a comprehensive concept for arms control and disarmament. Copies have been placed in the Library.
I will deal first with the declaration. This celebrates NATO's success in withstanding the test of four decades and enabling our countries to enjoy in freedom one of the longest periods of peace and prosperity in their history. It reaffirms NATO's belief in strong defence and a strategy of nuclear deterrence. It confirms that the presence of American conventional and nuclear forces remains vital to the security of Europe.
The declaration endorses NATO's conventional arms control proposals, which call for the elimination of disparities between NATO and the Warsaw pact in tanks, artillery and armoured troop carriers. It also welcomes the initiative announced by President Bush at the summit. For land-based combat aircraft and helicopters, this provides for reduction to equal ceilings at a level 15 per cent. below current Alliance holdings. All the equipment withdrawn is to be destroyed.
The initiative proposes a 20 per cent. cut in combat manpower in United States stationed forces, and a resulting ceiling of 275,000 on United States and Soviet ground and air force personnel stationed outside national territory in the area between the Atlantic and the Urals. This ceiling would require the Soviet Union to reduce its forces in eastern Europe by some 325,000. United States and Soviet forces withdrawn will be demobilised.
The American initiative sets the ambitious goal of trying to accomplish these reductions by 1992 or 1993. In addition, the declaration commends President Bush's "open skies" proposal.
The declaration also sets some very important political aims. At British initiative, it calls upon the Soviet Union and the east European countries to tear down the walls that separate us physically and politically; to ensure that people are not prevented by armed force from crossing the frontiers and boundaries which we share with the eastern countries; to respect in law and practice people's right to determine freely and periodically the nature of the government which they wish to have; and to see to it that their peoples can decide through their elected authorities what form of relations they wish to have with other countries.
I deal next with the comprehensive concept. This asserts a number of very important points: first, NATO's strategy remains one of deterrence. Secondly, conventional defence alone cannot ensure deterrence. Only the nuclear element can confront an aggressor with an unacceptable risk, and thus plays an indispensable role in the current strategy of war prevention.
Thirdly, deterrence therefore requires an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary—that is, a strategy of flexible response.
Fourthly, nuclear forces below the strategic level make an essential contribution to deterrence. Those points match in every respect the Government's views.
The comprehensive concept also deals with the particular role of short-range nuclear forces. This section confirms that land, sea and air-based systems, including ground-based missiles, will continue to be needed in Europe. It challenges the Soviet Union to reduce unilaterally its short-range missiles—in which it has massive superiority—to NATO levels.
It states that introduction and deployment of a follow-on system to the Lance missile will be addressed in 1992. Meanwhile, NATO recognises the value of the continuing research and development work on the follow-on to Lance being done by the United States.
Once agreement has been reached on conventional force reductions and implementation of that agreement is under way, then and only then, the United States is authorised to enter into negotiations to achieve a partial reduction in short-range missiles. But no reductions will be made in NATO's SNF missiles until after the agreement on conventional force reductions has been fully implemented. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Moreover, it is specifically recognised that removal of the imbalance in conventional forces—

An hon. Member: That is not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker: I heard that remark. Please withdraw it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Whatever you require, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was from a sedentary position, and I accept it.

The Prime Minister: Moreover, it is specifically recognised that removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would not obviate the continuing need for short-range missiles. In other words, negotiations will take place only when those strict conditions have been met—and there will be no third zero.
I pay tribute to the contribution of the Secretary-General of NATO, Dr. Woerner, in achieving that excellent result; and also to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for his very considerable part in the negotiation of the final documents.
The outcome of the summit is a great success for NATO. We have shown ourselves to be a strong, confident and united alliance, holding the initiative on arms control and challenging the Soviet and east European Governments to give their people the genuine freedom of choice which our own people enjoy. The values which have guided the West for 40 years have been reaffirmed. Our common commitment to a strong defence has been renewed. On NATO's 40th anniversary, this was a very satisfactory outcome for the Alliance and for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and specifically welcome, among other things, proposals for the elimination of disparities between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries, and the emphasis


given in her statement and in the communiqué to the removal of physical and political barriers between East and West, and rapid progress towards freedom of movement, thought and political and civil rights in the Warsaw pact countries. However, arising from her statement, can the Prime Minister confirm that, when she said that no reductions will be made in NATO's SNF missiles until after the agreement on conventional force reductions has been fully implemented, she did not mean that there would be no negotiations on reductions in missiles until after the conventional force agreement had been completed? [Interruption.] In view of the confusion, clarification is necessary.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that her main objectives at last week's NATO summit were, first, to gain a specific commitment to the replacement of the existing Lance missile launchers by new weapon systems with ranges of up to 485 km; secondly, to gain the specific exclusion of all possibility of negotiating short-range nuclear weapons reductions, as she made clear in her statement of 7 May that
there can be no negotiations";
and, thirdly and consequently, to rule out explicitly any question of a third nuclear zero in central Europe at any time? Will the Prime Minister confirm that she failed to achieve a single one of those objectives?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, following Secretary of State Baker's visit to Moscow on 11 May, the Russians responded on 23 May by accepting NATO's proposed ceilings on the number of tanks and armoured vehicles, with obvious consequences for reductions in troop levels? Does she agree that it was then very wise of President Bush to lead NATO to accommodate the Soviet proposal that combat aircraft, helicopters and troops should be included in negotiations? Do those proposals and objectives have the right hon. Lady's wholehearted and unremitting support?
In the light of developments over past months, and particularly last week, is it not now obvious that the Prime Minister should change her attitudes to take advantage of changing conditions in the way that the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and other NATO countries are clearly doing'? Is the right hon. Lady prepared to join them in efforts to work to conditions in which, in President Bush's words, Europe can
forgo the peace of tension for the peace of trust"?
Does the Prime Minister now agree with President Bush that there is a need to go "beyond containment" of the Soviet Union to a situation in which, as freedom and democracy spread in eastern Europe,
the role of NATO shifts from the main emphasis upon deterrence"?
Is the Prime Minister aware that unless she changes she will ensure that it will be the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany that are, in President Bush's words in Mainz last Wednesday, the "partners in leadership"?

The Prime Minister: I shall read the full extent of what the comprehensive concept says about negotiations on short-range nuclear forces:
Once implementation of such an agreement is under way"—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: But not completed.

The Prime Minister: There is quite a lot to come yet. The comprehensive concept says:

Once implementation of such an agreement is under way, the United States, in consultation with the Allies concerned, is prepared to enter into negotiations to achieve a partial reduction"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I did—
of American and Soviet land-based nuclear missile forces of shorter range to equal and verifiable levels. With special reference to the Western proposals on CFE tabled in Vienna, enhanced by the proposals by the United States at the May 1989 Summit, the Allies concerned proceed on the understanding"—
this is the bit that the right hon. Gentleman forgot to observe—
that negotiated reductions leading to a level below the existing level of their SNF missiles will not be carried out until the results of these negotiations have been implemented.
Negotiations do not start—precisely what I said. [Interruption.] Implemented means implemented—yes, fully implemented. No short-range nuclear missile will be taken out until the results of the conventional negotiations have been implemented. Implemented means fully implemented. The comprehensive concept says:
Reductions of Warsaw Pact SNF systems should be carried out before that date.
On the entire comprehensive concept, it reaffirms all the principles with which we agree but which the Leader of the Opposition rejects. It states that
for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to the Alliance's strategy for prevention of war.
Deterrence requires
an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary … Only the nuclear element can confront an aggressor with an unacceptable risk.
I am reading directly from the comprehensive concept. It says:
Nuclear forces below the strategic level will continue to be required.
It states:
There is … a level of forces, both nuclear and conventional, below which the credibility of deterrence cannot be maintained.
It also says that the need for short-range nuclear weapons will not be obviated by anything in the comprehensive concept.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about President Bush's proposal on the reductions of helicopters and aircraft and the amount specified in his proposals. We referred his suggestion, which must be carefully looked at, to a NATO group. France and Great Britain were both deeply concerned that it should not affect dual-capable aircraft which are vital to both our strategies, and are part of the NATO strategy. The proposal will be looked at very carefully by a group in NATO before it goes to the negotiations in Vienna. The right hon. Gentleman will find that, in the light of his recent proposals, he could not possibly have put his signature to the comprehensive concept proposals, which are excellent. They have been agreed by all the allies, and that is the strategy for the foreseeable future. They would be negated by the right hon. Gentleman's Labour policy.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members unequivocally welcome the statement on the outcome of the summit and warmly congratulate her on her important role in securing a settlement which contributes to the peace of the world and is certainly to the advantage of the West? Can she confirm that, of the 16 countries representing NATO, not one of the eight Socialist Prime Ministers had


any reservations about the comprehensive concept and the continuing need for nuclear weapons, unlike the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. All the countries at the summit, whether Socialist, Conservative or centre endorsed the comprehensive concept requiring a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, and also agreed that a mix of nuclear weapons —land, sea and air-based—would be needed for the foreseeable future. All countries absolutely agreed on the concept of flexible response, which must be matched by the requisite weapons. It was a very good summit, but one to which the Labour party could never have acceded.

Mr. James Wallace: We certainly welcome the initiative taken by President Bush which largely led to the issue of an agreed communiqué. I am sure that the Prime Minister will recognise that that is not the end of the story because clearly there are differences in interpretation. Will she explain why the West German Government maintain that there is a third zero option when she denies it? In one of the many statements after the summit the Prime Minister maintained that our relationship with the United States was paramount. Does she not think that, while affirming the importance of that relationship, it is time to put the development of the European pillar and of our relationship with our European allies as a paramount consideration in our defence and foreign policy?

The Prime Minister: I cannot speak specifically for the Federal Republic of Germany. The Secretary-General of NATO, Dr Woerner, clearly said that the reduction was partial and could not be entire. Paragraph 63 of the comprehensive concept clearly states that the need for short-range nuclear weapons is not obviated. President Bush confirmed that meaning. It is the United States which will have to enter into the partial reduction of those weapons, which belong to it and, when the time comes, the United States will carry out the negotiations. That seems pretty conclusive.
With regard to President Bush's specific proposals for further reductions in conventional armaments, helicopter, aircraft and station forces are being looked at in detail by a committee of NATO. I hope that those considerations will be concluded within a comparatively short time of two months, because there must be a number of detailed considerations before detailed proposals are put on the table in Vienna.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does not the sudden and tragic change in the political scene in Beijing underline yet again the need for extreme caution in the handling of these matters, and my right hon. Friend's great wisdom in stressing that point continually in recent weeks?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What has happened in some part of Russia and—in a much worse way—in China shows that a defence policy can never be based on hope or good intentions; it can be based only on a sure defence. Those who value freedom and democracy will ensure that defences remain certain, and for the foreseeable future that will require a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons, and a mix of nuclear weapons from strategic to short range.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that NATO parliamentarians meeting in the spring session last week warmly welcomed the summit agreement and endorsed the comprehensive concept approach to arms control, but that their discussions reflected differing attitudes to negotiations on short-range nuclear forces? They probably thought that, on balance, the key lay in the Vienna talks on conventional armed forces in Europe—CFE. As so much may hinge on those talks, will the Prime Minister do whatever she can to speed up the timetable?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the negotiations in Vienna on tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery are going very well. Some proposals have been agreed and others have yet to be agreed, but agreement has not yet been reached on the monitoring and verification of the destruction of vehicles. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, that is absolutely vital: there is no earthly good in an agreement that tanks and armoured personnel vehicles shall be destroyed unless there is an adequate verification procedure, without which they might be withdrawn behind the Urals and not actually destroyed. The same goes for helicopters and other aircraft. That, unfortunately, will take some time to negotiate.
As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the question of helicopters and other aircraft must be considered carefully within NATO—because of the dual-capable aircraft and a number of other factors—as must the question of stationed forces. It is thought that the negotiations may not take too long; implementation and verification would of course take much longer. There is no delay, but we want to be certain that verification procedures are adequate so that we can keep our strong defence.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Recalling how both East and West reached their present position on disarmament, should we not pay tribute to the resolve of the British people, who consistently supported a party of nuclear deterrrence—as offered by the Conservatives in the past few general elections—in the teeth of considerable objection from Opposition parties whose policies would never have brought us to our present position? Is there not an element of humbug in the Opposition's cheering of aspects of disarmament policy from the sidelines when their policies would never have allowed us to come anywhere near the position that we have now achieved?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It was the firmness upheld by the Government and our NATO partners that brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table, which I believe was an aspect of the change in its policies. Without that firmness Communism would be stronger today instead of very much weaker; without it the changes in the Soviet Union could never have come about.

Mr. John Cartwright: The military argument in favour of NATO's land-based short-range nuclear weapons has always been that they were needed to offset the Soviet supremacy in conventional firepower. If, as we all hope, the CFE negotiations will result in the removal of that Soviet threat, why do we need a new generation of SNF missiles in addition to the nuclear artillery and the sea-launched and air-launched nuclear weapons that NATO already deploys in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find the answer in paragraph 63 of the comprehensive concept. The removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would provide scope for further reductions in the sub-strategic nuclear forces of members of the integrated military structure, although it would not obviate the need for such forces. The hon. Gentleman will find an expansion of that in the comprehensive concept. Short-range nuclear weapons must be available to commanders in the field at all stages so that at any time a potential aggressor could not be certain whether they would be used. That is an essential part of flexible response. [Interruption.] I am not preaching to the hon. Gentleman: I would not waste my breath. I am trying to quote from the comprehensive concept.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the concept of a Europe whole and free embraces the notion of a united Germany? Does she regard that as a stabilising or a destabilising consideration in the future of Europe?

The Prime Minister: The declaration envisages that possibility when it says that the peoples of any particular country should be able to say through their elected representatives—and of course we want democracy in each of them—what its relationship to other countries should be. That idea is embodied in the declaration.

Ms. Clare Short: Does not the Prime Minister understand that the best help we can give to the people of eastern Europe in enhancing democracy and their economic development is to agree to arms reductions on both sides? The right hon. Lady alone in NATO is blocking those processes by pushing for modernisation and opposing the third zero. Her rhetoric belongs to the past. She does not understand the new era that is now possible—a free and united Europe. She is blocking the development of democracy in eastern Europe.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady talks nonsense, and she is the prisoner of her own propaganda. It was this Government who, together with our partners in NATO, put on the table in Vienna proposals for very deep cuts in tanks, armoured personnel vehicles and artillery, to bring down their numbers far lower than the Soviet Union ever thought of. We are pursuing those reductions, but we insist on a proper procedure for verifying the destruction of those weapons. To do anything else would be highly dangerous to the future of democracy and freedom in western Europe.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Brussels declaration, which reaffirms the necessity for nuclear deterrence, would not in all conscience have been signed by anyone who was a member of CND?

The Prime Minister: Confirmed absolutely.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Prime Minister make clear exactly how she stands on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons? Is she really saying that, regardless of what reductions are achieved in conventional weapons, NATO should persist in modernising the remaining short-range weapons that presumably it must have to maintain a flexible response? If that is what the right hon. Lady is saying, is that not to be interpreted as a prophecy of doom—that no matter how

the Soviets use their resources, be they conventional or chemical, NATO's response would have to include retaliation by use of a nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister: I repeat that to which 16 nations agreed in the comprehensive concept—

Mr. Douglas: Did you agree?

The Prime Minister: Of course I agreed to it wholeheartedly, on behalf of the Government and people of this country:
The removal of the imbalance in conventional forces would provide scope for further reductions in sub-strategic nuclear forces … though it would not obviate the need for such forces.
Therefore, the need for them remains.

Mr. Douglas: Regardless?

The Prime Minister: Regardless? That is the principle of Alliance security set out in the comprehensive concept. It states also:
for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to the Alliance's strategy for prevention of war.
Deterrence requires
an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear, and conventional forces which will continue to be kept up to date where necessary.
The concept goes on to refer to short-range nuclear forces also, in paragraph 27:
The Allies sub-strategic nuclear forces arc not designed to compensate for conventional imbalances … Their -ole is to ensure that there arc no circumstances in which a potential aggressor might discount the prospect of nuclear retaliation in response to military action. Nulcear forces below the strategic level thus make an essential contribution to deterrence.
Sixteen nations signed up to that agreement—but not the Labour party.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Before she left for Brussels, did my right hon. Friend find time to read the comment of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that she would be alone and totally isolated? In light of the fact that NATO unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear deterrence, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the
Labour party and the right hon. Member for Gorton who are totally isolated, particularly from their fellow Socialists in Europe, who entirely support nuclear deterrence?

The Prime Minister: Far from being isolated, we were very prominent in negotiating an excellent result. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was particularly prominent in negotiating the final language of the communiqué, especially that concerned with short-range nuclear forces. Altogether it was a very satisfactory conference and result for the United Kingdom and for the Alliance. The Opposition could never have signed that as their policy rejects flexible response and want a third zero—both those options were negated by what we agreed. The Labour party wants to get rid of all nuclear weapons, whereas the NATO summit particularly confirmed the continuing need for a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons. We value democracy and freedom enough to defend it adequately on behalf of the people.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Prime Minister enlighten the House? At what stage is she


prepared to put British land-based aircraft into the negotiations on the reduction of conventional weapons in Europe?

The Prime Minister: We are not prepared to put dual-capable aircraft into the negotiations, for obvious reasons—obvious from what the hon. Gentleman said. The proposal is for a reduction in aircraft of something like 15 per cent., and we are advised that that should not include dual-capable aircraft.

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield): My right hon. Friend will be aware that today we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Anglo-American landings in Normandy to set Europe free. Will she confirm that the Anglo-American partnership within NATO is as strong and united as ever? Does she further agree that the way to freedom in the Eastern bloc is a strong Western democracy?

The Prime Minister: Yes. President Bush reaffirmed once again the United States' commitment to the defence of Europe and its forces to Europe. Of course, Europe would not be free had it not been for the devotion and the forces of the United States. We are eternally grateful for that and for the United States' continuing commitment. The comprehensive concept sets out the need for land-based nuclear missiles from America to be present in Europe.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to share with our NATO allies the concerns expressed by one of the Ministers at the Foreign Office about the blackmail of Labour Members of Parliament? Does she share those concerns?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that such thoughts were never mentioned at NATO. He is fully aware of the statement which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs published and which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made quite clear.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend note that at about the same time as the NATO summit President Gorbachev announced an increase in spending on defence several times higher than had previously been announced? Does my right hon. Friend agree that against that background we should have looked extremely stupid in NATO and in Britain had we taken the blindest notice of the puny and supine attitude adopted over the years by the Leader of the Opposition and his party?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Warsaw pact countries, particularly the Soviet forces, have immensely increased large numbers of conventional weapons over ours and will continue to do so for a long time to come. Even if a conventional agreement was signed, it would take a long time to get Soviet forces down and verified to the levels we seek, and during that time we should be extremely vulnerable. Even after that, we should need a mix of conventional and nuclear weapons to be a proper deterrent.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Prime Minister ever agree to dual-capable aircraft being included in the

negotiations? What does she have against parallel negotiations on conventional and strategic nuclear forces? Is it not time that we stopped nuclear modernisation and gave peace a chance?

The Prime Minister: Reductions in strategic arms by the Soviet Union and United States have recommenced. Discussions on reductions in conventional weapons will go ahead at Vienna, and there will also be talks on reducing chemical weapons. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Soviet Union has enormous superiority in forces, weaponry and aircraft, which will remain for a long time. Conservative Members are concerned to ensure that we have a proper and effective defence.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has Mr. Bush suggested that Tornado be included in the package for negotiation? Do the comments that the Prime Minister made today about modernisation accord with statements made to the West German Parliament by Mr. Kohl?

The Prime Minister: No, President Bush has not suggested that Tornado be included. He has made general proposals and is aware of our view on dual-capable aircraft. Our advice is that they need not be included in the 15 per cent., and that is our understanding. Of course the details are to be worked out—it is vital how they are spread—in a NATO group before they are put on the table at Vienna. Detailed proposals will need to be put on the table. [Interruption.] I do not answer for Chancellor Kohl, who is well able to speak for himself. He signed up for the comprehensive concept, and when I challenged everyone assembled at NATO that it did not mean a third zero no one dissented from my view. The Secretary-General of NATO and President Bush said that "partial" means partial, and only partial. Germany signed, in paragraph 63, for the fact that anything in the comprehensive concept does not obviate the need for short-range nuclear weapons. I assume that Germany will keep the word to which she honourably put her name.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the far-reaching communiqué that was made soon after the summit is acutely embarrassing to those who have supported CND and unilateralism and to those who have been apologists for Soviet imperialism? When dealing with questions put to her, often by Labour Members, will she continue to practise the Christian virtue of forgiveness?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Sixteen Governments agreed this most far-reaching communiqué, which sets the strategy for the foreseeable future. Precious few Labour Members would agree anything of it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not the Prime Minister's obsession with modernisation a back-door means of fuelling the arms race? As the Prime Minister has been talking about freedom and democracy, perhaps she will explain to the House what freedom and democracy British people have if nuclear arms are used—she has repeated that she is prepared to use them if necessary—to turn our part of the planet into a radioactive cinder heap?

The Prime Minister: Unless one is prepared to use weapons, they are not, and never could be, a deterrent. I say again that 16 nations across Europe and the other side of the Atlantic —the United States, Canada and the


nations of Europe belonging to NATO going way beyond the European Community—signed the treaty, including other Socialist Governments. The Labour party could not sign the document and therefore could not accept the shield and defence of NATO. What a pity Labour Members are such a puny lot.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most critical reasons for our retention of tactical nuclear weapons is the overwhelming number of chemical weapons that the Soviet Union possesses—approximately one quarter of its forward stocks of ammunition? Does she further agree that those weapons give the Soviet conventional forces an overwhelming advantage, which is further enhanced by their numerical superiority?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the Soviets have colossal superiority in chemical weapons, a point that is dealt with effectively in this year's defence White Paper. In 1991 the older chemical weapons that the United States has stationed in the Federal Republic will be withdrawn and then we shall be without any chemical weapons unless modernised ones are substituted and stationed. In that case, our only response to the use of chemical weapons would be nuclear, and that is an additional reason for keeping nuclear weapons.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Why is it so difficult for the right hon. Lady to admit that a major change has taken place in recent times in the special relationship between America and the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: The alliance between the United States and Canada and the European partners of NATO is as firm as ever it was, and it is that which makes our defence sure. The major change that has taken place has been in the approach, opinions and views of the Soviet Union, a change that would never have come about but for the firmness of people who share our views on defence.

China

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about events in China in recent weeks.
During the last few days, units of the Chinese army have been engaged in the violent suppression of peaceful and popular demonstrations in the streets of Peking. The indiscriminate and unprovoked use of military force has caused the death or injury of thousands of students and other innocent civilians.
I am sure that all Members of the House will share the worldwide sense of horror and join in the international condemnation of the slaughter of innocent people.
I summoned the Chinese charge d'affaires yesterday. I told him that the British Government and people were united in condemning the merciless treatment of peaceful demonstrators, and deeply deplored the use of force to suppress the democratic aspirations of the Chinese people. 1 told him that the British Government looked to the Chinese authorities to fulfil their obligations to Hong Kong in the joint declaration of 1984. 1 reminded him of the responsibilities of the Chinese Government to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents.
I expressed concern at the maltreatment of British journalists, particularly Michael Fathers of The Independent and Johnathan Mirsky of The Observer. We have since seen disturbing reports of the ill-treatment of Kate Adie of the BBC.
Our ambassador in Peking and his staff have been working round the clock to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents in Peking and, as far as possible, in other parts of China. The embassy hay, advised against travel to any part of China. It has also advised those who are concerned about their safety and have no pressing need to remain in China to leave immediately.
Since the cultural revolution there has been a substantial improvement in relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China as the Chinese Government have sought to broaden their contacts with the international community and to introduce economic and other reforms. Friends of China in this House and around the world must share the hope that sane and balanced government will be swiftly and securely restored in Peking. In present circumstances, however, there can be no question of continuing normal business with the Chinese authorities.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided on the following action.
All scheduled ministerial exchanges between Britain and China have been suspended. The visit of the Chinese Minister of Justice, who was due to arrive here tomorrow, has been cancelled. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also cancelled his forthcoming visit to China.
The proposed visit of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to China in November clearly cannot take place so long as those responsible for the atrocities over the past weekend remain in control of the Chinese Government.
All high-level military contacts with China have been suspended.
All arms sales to China have been banned.
At the same time, the Government are examining how we can respond to any requests for humanitarian assistance from non-governmental organisations.
The whole House will share the Government's special concern about the implications for Hong Kong of what has been happening in Peking. The Government understand and share the grave concern felt by the people of Hong Kong. We have all been deeply impressed by the strength and restraint of their response to what has happened.
Everything that has been accomplished in Hong Kong has been achieved in the unique context of the geography and history of the territory and by the talent and enterprise of its people. All of that underlines the extent to which the future prosperity of Hong Kong must depend on a successful and secure partnership with the Government and people of China. That objective is enshrined in the commitments made by the British Government and the Government of China under the joint declaration. Those commitments were reaffirmed by the charge d'affaires when he called on me yesterday.
But it is self-evident that if we are to have confidence in the commitment of the Chinese Government to their obligations, there must be a stable and responsible Government in Peking. The British Government will stand by their obligations under the joint declaration. The Government and the House look to the Government of the People's Republic of China to live up to that international commitment as well.
The events in Peking must affect the prospects and procedure for implementation of the joint declaration. Consultations about the second draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong have been suspended. It is also difficult to see how our own contacts with the Chinese Government about the future of Hong Kong can continue in present circumstances.
Meanwhile, I assure the House that we shall be conducting a thorough examination of the programme for advancing and consolidating effective democracy in Hong Kong. We are considering urgently what further steps can be taken to enshrine and protect Hong Kong's freedoms and way of life after 1997.
All of us in this House are acutely conscious of the wish of the people of Hong Kong to secure some form of assurance for themselves and their families. I know that this has been one of the issues studied by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Some commentators have recommended that a right of abode in this country should be given to the 31/4 million people in Hong Kong who hold British nationality. We share the desire of the House to do everything we can to enhance the security of the people of Hong Kong. On that basis, the Government are looking urgently and sympathetically at the scope for flexibility. But the House will appreciate the reason why we could not easily contemplate a massive new immigration commitment which could—and the possibility cannot be disregarded —more than double the ethnic minority population of the United Kingdom.
Our overriding aim must be to do everything possible to secure the continuation of those conditions in Hong Kong that have led to its outstanding success over the last

century. I hope the House will send a message to the people of Hong Kong reaffirming our commitment to their secure, stable and prosperous future.
The Chinese people are seeking from their Communist leadership rights and liberties which are taken for granted in the free world. The slaughter in Peking is a tragic setback to the campaign for democracy, but I hope this House will send a united message. China cannot ignore the lessons which are being learned elsewhere in the world. Economic prosperity and personal liberty go hand in hand. People will not for ever tolerate government by repression.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friends and I condemn outright and in the strongest terms the abominable massacres which have been perpetrated in Beijing. Those of us who have great feelings of friendship for China and have watched its political and economic progress with hope and satisfaction are particularly appalled at this regression to barbarity. It is impossible for us to return to those attitudes so long as this bloodstained repression continues and until it is clear that those in control of China repudiate it.
The scenes of carnage on our television screens have horrified us all. I pay tribute to the courageous journalists who have reported the events, and in particular to the remarkable Kate Adie of the BBC who has risked her life to get the news to Britain.
We admire the swift and positive action taken by President Bush to demonstrate the anger of the United States.
We support the action which Her Majesty's Government have taken and which the Foreign Secretary has just announced. I wish, though, that as well as suspending arms sales—and of course we support that suspension—he would examine the possibility of cancelling all other exports to China, including exports of vehicles which could be used for repression of the civilian population.
I also ask whether the Foreign Secretary will consult the other Governments of the European Community to ensure that firm and concerted action is taken by the whole Community. I should be grateful if he could tell the House what action the United Kingdom Government are considering taking in the United Nations on this matter.
We have been told—and of course we welcome it—about the action which the Government are taking, so far as they can, to protect and assist British citizens at present in Beijing and any other areas that may be affected. Will our embassy also be accepting its responsibility for the safety of Hong Kong citizens—journalists, business people and others—who may be caught up in these disturbances?
It is essential for the Government to take whatever action is open to them to provide reassurance for the people of Hong Kong. In eight years their colony is due to be incorporated into China, but only if the safety, welfare and governance of Hong Kong remain the sole responsibility of this United Kingdom House of Commons.
As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Opposition recommended that elections to the Hong Kong Legislative Council should take place last year. That was not done. We now ask the Foreign Secretary urgently to consider the possibility of bringing forward the elections scheduled for 1991 if possible to this year, but certainly to no later than


next year, and that a higher proportion of the Legislative Council be directly elected. This would be a signal to the people of Hong Kong of our concern for their assured democratic future and to the Government of China that Britain is determined that the terms of the joint declaration be adhered to by them as well as by the United Kingdom.
I suggest to the Foreign Secretary that as soon as possible he should himself go to Hong Kong to discuss the possibility of advancing the election date, as well as to explain to the people and representatives of Hong Kong what he means in his statement today by talking about flexibility regarding the right of abode in this country. I also suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider travelling as soon as practicable to Beijing to obtain from the Chinese Government the firmest possible assurances that the joint declaration will be adhered to—[Interruption.] I would have thought that that would gain assent from the overwhelming majority in the House.
These are times of turmoil and I do not for a moment suggest that the Government should pretend to be able to do more than they can do. At the same time, whatever can be done must be done, for the sake of the people of Hong Kong and to make it clear to the Government of China that, while China should be welcomed into the wider world community as a great and growing power, that welcome must be conditional upon the Government of China conducting themselves in accordance with the standards of civilisation that they have been trampling on in recent days.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generally supportive tone of everything that he has had to say because it is clear that on all these matters there is very widespread agreement in the House.
I begin by echoing his tribute to the journalists of the BBC, Independent Television and the newspapers, and indeed to those of other countries. One of the most remarkable features of what has been happening in the last few weeks has been the continued opportunity for the rest of the world to see what has been going on in Peking, and also for Peking to know what has been going on in the rest of China, as a result of the free transmissions of radio from the rest of the world. The openness which has been at least a part of what has taken place in China has played a crucial part in events thus far.
The second question which the right hon. Gentleman raised was about the possibility of extending a prohibition to other exports to China, with particular reference to vehicles. Obviously all such questions must remain under consideration. Our basic principle is to subscribe to the position as outlined by President Bush, that it is important to maintain diplomatic, commercial and other human contacts, so far as is safe and possible, with the people and Government of China in order to try and retain the opportunity for recreating their previous open disposition.
European Community co-operation is under urgent consideration among the 12 countries and the Political Committee is meeting today. Already, the meeting due to take place between the Commission and a Chinese ministerial mission yesterday has been cancelled.
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has expressed his own personal and deep concern about what has happened and has called for the restoration of restraint and moderation in Beijing. However, it is also plain that there

is particular difficulty in pursuing in that organisation questions about human rights affecting one of the permanent members of the Security Council.
I made it plain in my statement that the British embassy has been putting great efforts into protecting and establishing contact with all British nationals and Hong Kong people in Beijing and elsewhere in China, without differentiation.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the matter of representative government in Hong Kong. It is important to recognise that the changes that we have sought to introduce so far in that respect have been those that command the widest possible support in the territory.

Mr. George Foulkes: Matters have changed since then.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will come on to that. It is also equally clear that in the light of recent events, opinion in Hong Kong has been evolving—[Interruption.] Wait for it. Even before the events of last weekend, the Executive and Legislative Councils called unanimously for full democracy by 2003—[Interruption.] That is what they called for. It is right that we should consider, in light of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and debates in this House, how we should respond to those views.
I welcome the importance attached by the right hon. Gentleman to the joint declaration. That declaration embodies the substantial principles on which the future of Hong Kong should be built. The crucial point is to secure compliance with that declaration, translated into the Basic Law, as fully and effectively as possible by a responsible Government in Beijing.
I recognise that there is wisdom in trying to find an opportunity to establish contact with ministerial opposite numbers in Beijing as soon as it makes sense to do that. It is equally clear that it would not make sense to try to do so in the present circumstances. The suggestion of a visit to Hong Kong is sensible and I will discuss it with the Governor of Hong Kong in London later this week.

Mr. David Howell: After the atrocities and butchery in Peking at the weekend—which my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly condemned, as the world condemns them, in the strongest terms that our language allows—will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure, if and when discussions resume in the joint liaison group about implementing the 1984 treaty, that we seek to make it absolutely clear to the Beijing regime and its officials that if they want to see a stable and prosperous Hong Kong, as they say they do, they must accept and support every measure that we deem necessary to bring that about and to maintain confidence in Hong Kong? Will he also remind the Beijing regime, when discussions begin again, that its obligations to maintain the stability, growth and prosperity of Hong Kong and its people exist not only now and up to 1997, but for 50 years thereafter and in perpetuity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the measured wisdom and authority of his remarks. I know that he and his colleagues on the Select Committee have been paying the closest attention to these matters in the important work that they have been doing. It is an important feature of the joint declaration that the Government of the People's Republic of China recognise,


without qualification, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the administration of Hong Kong until 1997, which is a responsibility that we shall continue to discharge to the fullest of our ability. It is also important for my right hon. Friend to remind the House and, through the House, the Government of the People's Republic of China of their responsibilities in the years that extend beyond 1997, under the joint declaration for a full span of 50 years, but in practice and aspiration way beyond that into the future.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is probably right, after our initial responses, to wait a few days to see how things develop in China. If democracy were to triumph in what is clearly a developing power struggle, everything would be well, but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is right to begin to think ahead, in case the worst should happen. Is it not the case that, under the joint declaration, the army that we have seen butchering its fellow citizens on the streets of Peking will be on the streets of Hong Kong in eight years' time? Is it surprising, therefore, that the last vestige of faith that many in Hong Kong had in the joint declaration, has been severely damaged and will have to be patiently rebuilt?
Let me welcome two aspects of the Foreign Secretary's statement. He said that negotiations taking place under the joint declaration will be suspended. Will he use the interim to try to build up international support for the joint declaration, perhaps through the medium of the United Nations? I welcome, too, the Foreign Secretary's flexible attitude to the application of the British Nationality Act. Does he realise that many will be watching closely to see how that develops?
I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider three further steps. First, will he set as the target that he has identified for the development of democracy in Hong Kong the establishment by 1991 of a Legislative Council at least half of whose members have been directly elected? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why half?"] At least half, as a first step, by 1991.
Secondly, when the excellent David Wilson's term as Governor of Hong Kong is up, will the Foreign Secretary consider providing a Hong Kong belonger to take his place—perhaps one elected from the Legislative Council?
Thirdly, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that all free western democracies have a real national interest in ensuring that democracy survives in Hong Kong? Does he agree that there may be a case for the Government considering a conference of the free western democracies to see whether an agreement could be reached whereby they could provide a last-resort sanctuary for the people of Hong Kong, as the ultimate bulwark for the survival of democracy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am impressed by the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman has learnt the case for patience. It is certainly right that we should await developments in Peking, because no one can yet foresee what will happen there, and much depends upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right—I welcome his remarks—to underline the importance of the joint declaration and of securing the effective commitment of the Chinese Government to that declaration.
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention in particular to the need to mobilise international support for the joint declaration. It was for that reason that the declaration was drawn up in the form of an international agreement and registered by both nations simultaneously at the United Nations. For that reason, incidentally, when I presided over the 40th anniversary meeting of the Security Council —with the Chinese Foreign Minister—I drew attention to the importance of the agreement that had been arrived at between us. The then Chinese Foreign Minister endorsed the agreement in the presence of that body. The highest solemnity needs to be attached to that if the Chinese Government are to be reminded of the importance that we attach to the declaration.
The right hon. Gentleman made some suggestions. On the composition of the Legislative Council, I have already made it plain that options and opinions are evolving in Hong Kong as a result of recent events. As soon as a clear view emerges, we shall be considering the best and most effective way to give effect to that. That is one of the matters that I shall wish to discuss when I am able to visit Hong Kong.
It is much too early to consider the replacement of the present Governor of Hong Kong, but the whole House will welcome the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to the quality of Sir David Wilson, who has been bearing a heavy burden in recent weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the prospect of an international conference on the refuge of last resort. I do not think that that is the right way of handling the matter. It is most important to concentrate not only on aspects of British nationality law but on the best way of restoring confidence in the prospects for Hong Kong.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he deserves the support of the whole House for his excellent statement and for the line that the Government have been taking throughout on China and Hong Kong? Will he transmit to the people of Hong Kong the assurance that the House continues to remain deeply interested in their welfare and that they have our continued support?
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the increased political awareness of the people of Hong Kong in the past few weeks and to the unanimous recommendation of the Executive and Legislative Councils calling for more rapid progress towards direct elections. Is not that a significant resolution? Does it not represent the first statement that gives the point of view of Hong Kong as a whole about the speed of progress towards direct elections—something for which the Basic Law drafting committee has been calling?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support for my statement. I am sure that the people of Hong Kong will take note of the very widespread support throughout the House for the opinions that I have tried to express. There is a close and continuing interest in this Parliament's discussion of the affairs of Hong Kong, which is a natural reflection of the link between that country and the prospects of democratic government.
I acknowledge the importance of my right hon. Friend's last point. The resolution unanimously arrived at by the Executive and Legislative Councils before the events of last weekend is important and we should take account of it. We should do so on the same basis that we have


followed to date, which is to try to identify the basis that commands the widest possible support in the territory and then to commend that to the draftsmen of the Basic Law.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, for more than 20 years I have been a proponent of good relations with China and the need to understand political developments in that enormously important country. Will he believe me this afternoon if I say that I share the universal revulsion that has been expressed at the conduct of the geriatric Chinese Government during the last few days? Does he accept that I strongly support the actions that he has adumbrated this afternoon? However, will he reconsider the statement that both he and the Prime Minister have made, that were there to be any lessening of the restraints on British nationals coming to this country from Hong Kong, a flood of 3·5 million people would be battering at the gates of Dover? Would it not be more honest to admit that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could get his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider the issue, it would be a matter of only 10,000 or 15,000 people a year, for six years, from the very limited categories for which, as he knows well, the Hong Kong Commission has been arguing the case for reconsideration? Will he discuss that specific matter with the Home Secretary?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I acknowledge the force of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. All who have watched with growing interest and enthusiasm the emergence of a new-style China during the past 10 years will share the hon. Gentleman's sense of deep grief at what has happened during recent weeks. It is important to note that there are still many people inside China and representing her throughout the rest of the world who also share that sense of grief. It is for that reason that we hope that common sense will be restored to authority in Peking before too long.
The hon. Gentleman rightly drew a distinction between the implied threat of a mass movement of people, which would happen if we tried to deal at once with 3·25 million people, and the alternative, to which I drew attention, of flexibility in the management of individual cases. That matter is certainly a topic for discussion between myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I do not ignore its importance.

Mr. Robert Adley: I share the disgust of the House and the whole of the free world for the unspeakable events in China. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in reality, our ability to influence what we would all like to happen—that is, the emergence of what he described as a sane and balanced Government in Beijing—is infinitesimal? Would it not, therefore, be wise to avoid giving the present blood-stained leaders any opportunity to continue holding power by playing the xenophobia card?
As regards Hong Kong, will my right hon. and learned Friend repeat what our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so clearly said, that 1997 is not a date produced out of thin air but the date when our lease ends? The only alternative to an agreement with China is no agreement, an eventuality that would make political boat people out of the whole population of Hong Kong.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House—although it needs no reminding—of the

inescapable facts of geography and history to which I referred in my statement. One such fact is the expiry of the lease in 1997. It is on that basis that we have secured the support of the House for the achievements of the joint declaration, to which the House attaches importance. My hon. Friend is also right to warn against xenophobia in any aspect of managing a problem of such complexity. I think that he would go too far if he were to believe that the capacity of people outside China to influence the future there should be described as infinitesimal. Of course, the prospect of having influence upon a mass population of 1·25 billion and on the people who seek to govern that country is in one sense very small. Yet, if one thinks of the huge impact of the opinion of the rest of the world as a result of the openness that has come about in recent years, if one thinks of the incredible reality that the leader of the Soviet Union was there only a few weeks ago, being hailed as a champion of democracy, and if one thinks of the changes that have been able to have an impact on that society, my hon. Friend should not despair too much of the ability of the rest of us to make some impact on prospects for the people of China.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the great majority of people in China, as they learn the facts, must share the horror of the rest of the world about the events in Beijing and the massacre of citizens and students last Sunday? In those changed circumstances, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the speedy introduction of direct elections for the majority of the members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong would not only give the people of Hong Kong the best chance of securing their own security but would also be a demonstration to the people of China that it is possible speedily, responsibly and with restraint to introduce democracy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman has rightly put his finger on one of the most important new factors in the scene, a factor that has already affected the evolution of opinion in Hong Kong, the extent to which the shape of representative institutions in Hong Kong can serve not only as a bulwark for their own freedom but as an example to the Chinese people. It is with that in mind that we shall take account as urgently as would make sense of the evolution of new thinking on the topic within Hong Kong itself.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I regard what he has just said as of particular significance? The question of confidence for the future of the people of Hong Kong is a delicate matter upon which the future, not only of Hong Kong but of many of our own interests and those of China itself, hangs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore take on board the strong feeling that many of us heard over the weekend from all sections of Hong Kong society urging him onwards with the firm commitment, that I believe he is making, to review again the process of democracy so that when the time comes we can really test in the 50-year period the one-country, two-system claim?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is more than entitled to remind me of the importance of the opinion and aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. Throughout all the months and years that I have been concerned with the question I have tried as far as possible to display sensitivity


to their feelings. During the early and difficult months of negotiation I went to the territory to try to explain to the people and to their representatives how the matter was proceeding. Perhaps no one recognises more than I do the importance of continuing to strengthen that bond of trust between the people and those who represent them, however indirectly, in this Parliament.

Dr. John Marek: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it was a welcome change to hear him say that he would consult the people of Hong Kong to bring forward democracy as quickly as possible? Will he also accept that the answer to the question whether democracy is wanted in Hong Kong was given not by Legco or by any sampling of opinion but by the people of Hong Kong in the last week, and that there is abundant evidence that the people want democracy to the same extent as the Foreign Secretary of any other hon. Member wants it for the United Kingdom? Will he therefore do his best to make sure that the consultations are as quick and as sharp as possible and that an announcement is made within the next few weeks to reassure the people of Hong Kong on this important matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman when he said that it is a welcome change that we have been engaging in consultation with the people of Hong Kong. Throughout we have sought to consult their opinions directly and through their representatives as carefully as possible.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw attention to the opinions expressed not only by the members of Legco and the Executive Council but by the people of Hong Kong more directly. He would not be prudent to urge us to jump to a single conclusion on the basis of that, however understandable it may be. We must consider carefully with those who have been governing Hong Kong in recent weeks and months as well as with the people of Hong Kong the right way of responding to the undoubted new needs that exist.

Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my recollection that in the lifetime of the People's Republic of China there have been massive and often violent upheavals every five years, such as the great leap forward, the back to the land campaign and the cultural revolution, leading to loss of confidence in Hong Kong, flight and a search for foreign passports? During that period the Chinese Government, of whatever complexion, still maintained their international agreements. Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind those who are seeking to use the present troubles to propagate their own ideas, whether on passports to this country or on elections in Hong Kong, of that fact and also point out to them that any such proposals must be considered against the overriding need to preserve the peace and prosperity of Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend, with his close experience of the territory, reminds the House of some important points. Of course, we have to consider all those matters in the light of our experience of the long history of relations between China and the outside world. It is certainly right to remind the House of the frequency with which the Government of China, even in recent

circumstances, have emphasised their intention to continue to respect their international agreements. That was one point specifically made to me by the chargé in the exchange of opinion last night. It is important not only to remind the House but for us to remind the Government of the People's Republic of China of their repeated commitment to international obligations.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Despite the problems and the inescapable facts of geography, is it conceivable that there could be effective implementation of agreements with the present leadership, with its bloodstained hands that have been responsible for the death of so many thousands of its own citizens?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, so long as the leadership responsible for the events of the last few days, which the whole House has been mourning and condemning, remains in authority the matter will be fraught with a great deal of difficulty. That is why I responded to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) by emphasising the need for us to see how events unfold. In the long history of China one hopes that the events of the last few weeks may be regarded as only part of a chapter and that a new chapter will begin sooner rather than later.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: While I in no way advocate the admission of 3·25 million people to this country, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the evidence to the Select Committee of Lord MacLehose? Dealing with the difficult matter of categories, he said that for many years Governments in this country had used considerable ingenuity to keep people out of the United Kingdom and pointed out that it was perhaps time for them to use a little of that ingenuity to let a few in. How does my right hon. and learned Friend react to that, and how flexible is flexible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am certainly aware of that observation by the noble Lord MacLehose in his evidence to the Select Committee. Of course, it was only part of a more substantial body of evidence. I have drawn attention to the need to recognise the case for flexibility. I think that I would be unwise to be cross-examined by my hon. and learned Friend any further on that at this time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary accept the analysis that some old men in Peking have, unforgivably, brought in the Manchurian army, some of whose grandfathers were probably the worst and most hated persecutors of the Chinese at the time of the Japanese war? In such circumstances are we wise to say that we should break off all contacts, because there are five or six different Chinas? In particular, what advice would the Foreign Secretary give to the city of Edinburgh with its contacts with Xian where the people probably disapprove, just as much as the House does, of what has happened in Peking?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has committed himself to some unusually wise observations. He was certainly right to draw attention—as I have tried to do—to the huge diversity of opinion within China, which is why so many of us have expressed the hope with great fervour, although not yet with a great deal of confidence, that the sane, responsible China will prevail. That is why he was right to point out the need to maintain contact and relations of a personal, political and cultural


kind with the rest of China. It is in that way that we shall keep the spirit of democracy and the hope for the future alive in that great people.

Sir Philip Goodhart: If the violence and the repression of democratic dissidents continue, is it not plain that another flood of refugees will be heading towards Hong Kong? Are we making any contingency plans to help the colony to deal with that potential flood of asylum seekers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a hazard that may develop. He will appreciate, of course, the extent to which Hong Kong is already facing very real problems from the number of boat people who for various reasons still arrive there. All I can say at this stage is that any question of refugee status for any individual would have to be considered separately and when it arose.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that I, along with four other hon. Members, have recently returned from China and Hong Kong. We were in Beijing during the beginnings of the student demonstrations about three weeks ago. I find it, therefore, heartrending to see on television the very same streets that I walked upon now covered with dead bodies, blood and wrecked vehicles.
The discussions that we had with the students in the square at that time clearly indicated that all that the students wanted to do was to talk to the Government. The end result of the Chinese Government not talking to the students or their representatives has been confrontation, chaos, conflict and death. Is not the lesson to be learnt that, when a Government refuse to talk to their people, the end result will be what we have seen on television during the past few days?
In the very brief time we spent in Hong Kong, we discovered that what the people of Hong Kong—I emphasise the people of Hong Kong—clearly desire from the British Government is a very early change over to representative government in Hong Kong. If it were possible for the Government to take that wish into account and to bring the elections forward, that would restore some of the confidence in the people of Hong Kong, which has been greatly shattered in the past few days.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the extent to which the hon. Member is moved by his recent experience of Peking. We all have recollections of our first contacts with the emergence of proper democratic institutions in that country. He is right to draw attention to the far greater scope for wise government that is available to Governments who engage in dialogue and communication with their people. We fortunately have that kind of relationship through the hon. Gentleman, and through many other hon. Members, with the people of Hong Kong, and we are able to hear and take account of their views. The tragedy of what has happened in Peking is that such an attitude of discussion and non-confrontation appeared to prevail through the early weeks of the extraordinary events there. The horror of the tragedy is that it has only been in the past few days that such profound unwisdom has seized of the minds of those who govern China.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, grave though the present

situation is, it would be the greatest mistake to take any hasty steps towards changing the nationality law? Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that we have a number of years before the transfer of power in which it is quite possible that the situation will improve, as we all hope it will? Will he accept that the worst possible action would be to make concessions that would ultimately prove to be unsustainable?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend draws attention to the most important point about that most important argument. We cannot and should not engage in prospective changes in the law upon the footing that they might never need to be implemented. We have to look at the matter in a long perspective with the wisdom that my right hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. David Winnick: Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) should we not first pay particular tribute to all those who have demonstrated continuously, day and night, in the capital of China and in other cities for basic human rights? As we all know, to demonstrate under a dictatorship takes tremendous courage. Is it not a fact that foreign correspondents were constantly asked if the countries from which they came supported what the demonstrators were trying to do? On reflection, perhaps the Foreign Secretary will agree that the democracies—not only that of our country but other democracies—could have spoken out before the bloodshed started over the weekend.
Are there not some people in the Chinese leadership —perhaps, the person who was general secretary of the Communist party until a few days ago, and his predecessor, whose death started the demonstrations, and in the Chinese Communist party at senior levels—who recognise that, just as in eastern Europe and Soviet Union change had to come, so it has to come in China? Stalinism is dead, and all the bullets and all the terror in the world cannot keep Stalinism going.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact, as I have already emphasised, that certainly there are voices, and voices at a high level, in the Chinese Government of sanity, democracy and of belief in the kind of standards in which we believe. We must regret the passing of some of those voices, and continue to express the hope that those who remain will prevail in the immense struggles that are no doubt now taking place.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the British people, having watched step by step the enactment of a crime without a name against humanity and liberty in China, are confused, if not infuriated, by the somewhat nonchalant response of the Government and even more of the Opposition, who, had it been a European Government doing something on an infinitesimally smaller scale, would have been up in arms and on the streets? Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that in the meantime it is extraordinary that the Chinese Government should remain a permanent member of the Security Council, which is the alleged protector of human rights?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend rightly expresses his grave dismay of what has been taking place. However, I must say in the light of his judgment, that I do


not regard him as a very well qualified judge of nonchalance. Neither the Government nor, if I may say so, the Opposition, have been disposed to treat the events of recent days with anything other than the utmost seriousness.

Mr. Keith Vaz: What steps is the British embassy in Beijing taking to contact those British citizens who are resident outside the capital? I have a constituent, a Miss Elaine Sweeney, who is a teacher in the Situhan province in Chengdu. Her parents have been trying to contact her for the past week. I telephoned the Private Office of the Foreign Secretary at the weekend, and, although his official was very helpful and took down the details, the official did not know where the Situhan province was. Will the Foreign Secretary consider allocating additional staff to his Private Office and publishing an inquiry telephone number so that relatives can contact people readily?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the courtesy of the person to whom he spoke. I apologise for the lack of extensive geographical knowledge, which is understandable in the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me any further details, of course I shall take account of them. The embassy and our consulate in Shanghai are making every possible effort to contact all the known British subjects within China. Almost 500 of the 860 British subjects in China are in Peking and in Shanghai. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's particular suggestions for more expeditious handling of any other inquiries.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in spite of our sympathy and concern, our principal obligation is to the people of this country? Does he recognise that the last two major immigrations into this country were not widely welcomed by the indigenous population? Does he agree that if his flexibility led to another major immigration into this country, it would be widely resented and would damage race relations here?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that factor. That is why in my statement I drew attention to the immense difficulty of contemplating a massive new immigration commitment of the kind involved in any fundamental change. My hon. Friend has underlined the importance of his warning in other contexts as well.

Mr. Frank Field: Does not hindsight teach that the House was wrong to seek an agreement with China on the future of Hong Kong? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House about the Government's fallback position should the changes in the Chinese Government which he has outlined not occur? Will he open international negotiations so that Hong Kong can gain the protection of United Nations trusteeship when it ceases to be a British territory, should the people of Hong Kong wish that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that, unusually, the hon. Gentleman is drawing the wrong conclusions from hindsight. As I have said already, it would not make sense to ignore the historical and geographical realities that are

implicit in the fact that 92 per cent. of the territory reverts to China in 1997. Any viable future for Hong Kong must be based on co-operation and co-existence with China, not on confrontation. Any attempt to design some alternative to that, dependent upon the goodwill of almost any organisation that the hon. Gentleman cares to name, would be of little, if any, value in the absence of the right relationship with China. That is why I have no doubt about the wisdom of arriving at the joint declaration. I have no doubt about the importance of underlining its significance for the future. Our first task is to restore the substance and confidence that can be placed in it.

Mr. James Couchman: Given China's tendency to isolate itself when it goes through one of these great upheavals, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) mentioned, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he will maintain relations with the People's Republic at as high a level as possible during these difficult times so that the actions of the British Government in no sense catalyse such a turning inward? Will my right hon. and learned Friend suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that at the earliest possible date—certainly before the House rises for the summer recess—a suitable day should be set aside for a debate on Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall draw my hon. Friend's last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In any event, such a debate was in prospect, given the timetable of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).
My hon. Friend's first point is important also. Nothing that we do would be directed towards precipitating any increase in the isolation of the People's Republic of China. That is why we are maintaining our embassy there and other links of the kind suggested by the Opposition. That is why I shall seek any sensible opportunity that presents itself to communicate to those in authority in Peking our anxieties and wishes for the future.

Mr. Pat Wall: The Foreign Secretary may recall that a year ago I raised with him my opposition to the Basic Law, as it was then put forward, and its lack of provision for democratic elections in Hong Kong. Would not the best tribute to those students and workers who died in the killing streets and squares of Beijing be to announce universal suffrage in Hong Kong immediately, and the holding of elections this year? Is it not tragic that these events have had to occur before the idea of universal suffrage in Hong Kong has been raised? I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that what is taking place is a crime against humanity and—speaking as a lifelong anti-Stalinist—a crime against the ideas of Socialism, which comes ill from those in China who claim to defend the Socialist system.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall refrain from making any of the political points that might be made in the face of the hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. I confess that I do not have instant recall of his attitude to these matters 12 months ago. I repeat: we have sought throughout, and will continue, to introduce arrangements for government in Hong Kong along the lines that command the widest possible support in the territory.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, now that the decrepit leadership of the People's Republic of China has murdered its way to the history books, whatever leadership emerges may welcome faster moves by my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government towards some elements of democracy in Hong Kong? Does he agree that the leaders may welcome it, first, so that they can make a success of the takeover of Hong Kong and, secondly, so that they can be seen by the world to be leading a country in a more decent way than the people from whom they took it over?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend may well be right, and one must hope so.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that those students and workers who died in their thousands when demonstrating against corruption, bribery, nepotism, the black market and the bureaucratic, Stalinist, one-party dictatorship that rules almost a third of mankind could have expected a little more praise for their heroism, bravery and self-sacrifice? Why does he not declare clear support for the political revolution which is still unfolding in China and honour the martyrs of Tiananmen square by declaring this country's full support for a Socialist workers' democracy in China and for self-determination, free elections and full democracy in Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As always, the hon. Gentleman brings a unique vision to bear on these matters. In the eyes of the great majority of hon. Members and of the world, the heroism of the people to whom he has rightly paid tribute was exercised in revolt against the logical consequences of the most Socialist country in the world.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in these twilight years of British power in Hong Kong, there will be a need for enlightened and good public servants who are Hong Kong citizens? Does he therefore agree that, at the very least, those who are willing to serve for the next nine years should be given an understanding that, should the same kind of Government prevail, they will be treated properly, mercifully and humanely by the British people and the British Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Those factors are among those that need to be taken into account in appropriate circurnstances under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is not one of the key factors that will ensure that the students and workers have not died in vain the tremendous professional skill of the broadcasters, especially the television journalists, who brought us moving pictures of what happened? Given the unfortunate comments that some of the Foreign Secretary's right hon. Friends have made in the past, will he take this opportunity in particular to congratulate by name Kate Adie, who brought to reporting the facts from China the same standards of integrity and courage that she showed in Tripoli?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman talk to the Home Secretary about his plans for broadcasting? Some people fear that, if the present plans go ahead, the quality of the news coverage by British television and broadcasting crews will decline and be threatened. That will be a very bad day for this country.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even with the most liberal application of the rules of the House, discussion by me at this stage about the future of British broadcasting policy would be testing the patience of the House a little far.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: A moment or two ago a Conservative Member warned the Foreign Secretary of the likelihood, if these dreadful circumstances continue, of a huge number of refugees flooding into Hong Kong. What if refugees seek to leave China by way of the sea? What advice has been given to captains of British ships sailing in those waters, about dealing with such refugees? No doubt, their humanitarianism would prompt them to pick up such refugees but where would they be put ashore?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One must hope that the matter does not escalate on anything like that scale. At the moment, the disturbances, which are grave, have been largely, though not completely, confined to the capital of Peking. Were circumstances to develop as the hon. Gentleman has in mind, sea captains have their own criteria and standards that they apply in similar circumstances.

Passports

Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20 for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely
the crisis in the passport office.
Last week, the patience of the long-suffering staff in the passport offices across the country finally snapped. Before the action, persistent underfunding and management incompetence had led to a backlog of half a million passport applications. That was exacerbated by the applications made in bulk by private agencies which receive preferential treatment. The six offices have had application backlogs of up to 12 weeks. The action started in Liverpool on 30 May, after a secret ballot produced a vote of 87 to 2. Workers said frankly that enough was enough.
The trade unions in the Home Office, principally the Civil and Public Services Association and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, submitted a claim for 326 extra staff on 24 June 1988. One year later, there are no extra permanent jobs and no improvements in computer systems, despite sources in the management of the passport office saying that both the hardware and software were not up to the job.
On 23 November, 1 tabled early-day motion 39 and predicted that the increase of more than one million applications since 1979 to a current figure of 2·6 million, which had already led to intolerable delays, backlogs of passengers and holidaymakers and immeasurable pressure being placed on staff, would not be ameliorated by the

abuse of casual labour, by overtime or individual work measurement. That early-day motion predicted the chaos which is now ensuing. That warning of six months ago was ignored.
Last week, the National Audit Office issued a report criticising the passport department for its lack of planning and failure to predict the level of applications, or take corrective action on staffing early enough. That is an indictment of the management of the Home Office and a vindication of the trade unions' position.
The crisis is also an indictment of the Government's policy of reducing civil servants and public spending and preparing, through executive agency status, the privatisation of the passport service. Privatisation is irrelevant to the need for more resources to ease the pressures on staff and the public. When negotiations resume tomorrow, an independent review of the computer system, better facilities for staff and public and the full 326 increase in staffing levels are needed. The Government know what the staff and the public want and it is about time that they delivered it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the crisis in the passport office.
As the House knows, I have to take into account the requirements of the order and announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Dog Registration

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for a dog registration scheme.
The House will have been appalled by the number of savage attacks by Rottweiler dogs on innocent people, including young children, in recent weeks. The matter is urgent because since this April, seven people have been savagely mauled by Rottweiler dogs.
The first victim was Kelly Leech, a little girl of II years who died after a horrifying attack by a pair of that breed, which she was taking for a walk. Today's newspapers report yet another assault by a Rottweiler. This latest victim was a man from Luton who needed stitches to his arm. The specific list of vicious calamities makes sickening reading. On 29 May, 5-year-old Jamie Walker from Birmingham was attacked by three Rottweilers and needed 21 stitches. Two days later on May 31, 75-year-old grandmother Mrs. Nellie Williams and her dog were attacked by a Rottweiler while out for a stroll in a Leicester park. The same day a man was bitten by a Rottweiler on Merseyside when he went to pat the dog. Last week a six-month-old baby, Andrew Little, was attacked in his cot by his grandparents' Rottweiler, and another man needed stitches after an attack in Manchester. Today, we have the latest grim instalment of that catalogue of injuries.
Shortly before the recess, I wrote to the Leader of the House who refused to make available Government time to debate dog registration. Given the growing list of tragic attacks, the Government must act now and make time available for an urgent debate on the matter. It is an urgent issue and the Government's unwillingness to act makes it

more so. There are more than 500,000 dogs roaming loose in Britain every day. A total of 250,000 dog bites are treated in hopitals each year at a cost of £17 million to the NHS. Stray dogs cause 50,000 road accidents a year, and 10,000 livestock are attacked by dogs, leading to insurance claims of about £1 million a year.
We must find a solution to the problem. First, every dog should have an electronically implanted permanent identification code, or a tattoo, so that it and its owner can be identified. That would, at least, enable a lost dog and its owner to be reunited, and an irresponsible owner to be caught. Rottweilers are proving to be a menace to innocent people. The young and the frail are particularly at the mercy of these animals which have shown that they are capable of turning from family pet to barbarous creature in an instant.
Secondly, a properly funded dog warden scheme is needed to enforce the system, catch the strays and educate dog owners. The Government's unwillingness to act does not match up to public expectations, and I hope that they will act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for a dog registration scheme.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said. As he knows, my sole duty under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether the matter should be given priority over business already set down for this evening or tomorrow. I regret that I must give the same answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I genuinely apologise for raising a point of order on such a busy day but, of course, if it is not raised today, the first opportunity, I shall be unable to raise it in future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) raised a point of order on 26 May with Mr. Deputy Speaker which appears in Hansard at columns 1259 and 1260. He referred to a story that had been reported on BBC television the previous evening, 25 May, alleging the connection between the expulsion of Soviet agents from the United Kingdom and possible blackmail attempts on Labour Members.
The actual signing-off headline of the end of the television bulletin said:
Senior British sources have been giving reasons for the expulsion of Russian spies, who were believed to be involved with middle east terrorists and blackmailing Labour MPs.
The word "possible" had disappeared when the headline was given at the end of the BBC television news. In his point of order, my right hon. Friend said that he had contacted the Foreign Secretary's Office that morning before raising his point of order, but officials there were completely unable to clarify the position.
The following day, the Foreign Secretary responded to a letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition making it perfectly clear that Labour Members were not, in any way, associated with the activities for which Soviet diplomats had been expelled from the United Kingdom. No denial had been made before my right hon. Friend wrote to the Foreign Secretary. The Government knew that the allegations were a tissue of lies and it is surprising that absolutely no statement and no denial was made before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Foreign Secretary who, I agree, responded immediately.
I understand that it is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker: I want to make that quite clear.[Interruption.] I am on a point of order. Whether the Minister of State, to whom I have given notice of this was misunderstood or misrepresented by the BBC correspondent is of no concern to you, Mr. Speaker, or for that matter to me; I am not interested in that. My point of order simply concerns whether it is right for hon. Members to be subject to baseless allegations, whether or not such lies—and they were lies—originated within the Government.
Although you are not responsible for statements, Mr. Speaker, I beg you to consider the matter. A large number of hon. Members—all belonging to one party—were subject to baseless allegations which the Government knew to be a tissue of lies. Would it not be right and appropriate for the Minister concerned—who is in the Chamber and to whom I have given notice, and who has denied responsibility—to make a statement to the House to clarify the position and to be questioned by hon. Members? He has a duty and responsibility to the House, as a Member of Parliament. He should stand up and make his position clear.

Mr. Speaker: Of course I deprecate any allegations made against any hon. Member of the House, from whatever quarter. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about is a report on the BBC. That is not a matter for me, and I do not think that I can deal with it.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept that what was said on the BBC is not directly a matter for you. What is a matter for you is, perhaps, to let the House know whether the Minister who, apparently inadvertently, may have been responsible for the report that was broadcast as a result of a lunchtime conversation with a BBC journalist —as he is present and received warning that the matter was to be raised—will now be honourable enough to ask to be allowed to make a personal statement making clear to the House what he has apparently said outside it.

Mr. Ian Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an astonishing proposition that the Government should make a statement every time allegations are made about members of the Opposition? It is a common experience for all of us to hear allegations against Opposition Members, and indeed against some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Minister, who is in his place, has behaved with complete honour throughout. He issued a full statement on 2 June. The matter was raised in the House on 26 May, the day on which we rose for the recess. Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is living up to his reputation—that of being, in the words of a former leader of the Labour party, the silliest man in the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not possible for me to comment on what has been said. I think that we must move on.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. There is nothing that I can do about the matter. I cannot be held responsible for conversations with members of the BBC or the press: it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You and I were parliamentary colleagues of a Northumberland miner by the name of Will Owen: you may remember him. Will Owen was broken by circumstances which—I choose my words very carefully —turned out subsequently to be rather different from what had been alleged at the time. Will Owen died a broken and, some would say, a disgraced man. I think that all of us, particularly Ministers, must be very careful indeed. The Minister of State probably did not know Will Owen, but he was a friend of mine and of some Conservative Members who privately felt as strongly as I did.
The Minister may recollect that in the case of Will Owen an injustice may have been done. I think that Ministers who were not here during Will Owen's time ought to be very careful about being reported on the subject of events of which they may not have first-hand knowledge. In a sense, Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of departed colleagues as well. I think that for the protection of one of those colleagues you should at least invite the Minister to make some kind of statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should all be extremely careful about what we say both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to a written answer given today by the Minister of State, Home Office about the introduction of visa requirements for people coming to this country from Turkey.
On 26 May there was an Adjournment debate on the position facing Kurdish asylum-seekers. I raised a number of questions with the Minister, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). At no stage in his lengthy reply did the Minister of State say that he had already written to the Turkish Government seeking to lift the provisions of the 1960 agreement between Britain and Turkey to the effect that visas would not be required. He sent the letter to the Turkish Government on 23 May. It is now revealed, on our first day back after a short recess, that the Government are indeed seeking to impose visa restrictions from 23 June on people visiting this country from Turkey. The implications are clearly very serious. Anyone seeking political asylum from Turkey will not be able to come here, as a visa will not be made available. If they try to come here, the airline or other carrier that has brought them can be fined £1,000.
This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. It should not creep out in a parliamentary answer; it ought to be the subject of a statement from the Home Secretary so that he can be questioned and opportunities for debate can be provided. I am sure that you agree that it is a serious matter, and we look to you to provide some facility for us to question the Government about their behaviour and, indeed, their treatment of the House in not revealing the information on 26 May, as they could have.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am sure that it has been heard by those on the Government Front Bench. I have given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise the matter, and no doubt he will have other opportunities.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take any more points of order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and we have a busy day ahead of us.

Mr. Winnick: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had a very good run this afternoon.

BILL PRESENTED

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARTER

Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. A. J. Beith and Mrs. Ray Michie, presented a Bill to establish local authority ecology working groups for the purpose of adopting an environmental charter to carry out specific measures to protect and enhance the quality of the natural environment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle]

Agriculture (Control of Nitrates)

Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the use of nitrogenous fertilisers.
In the late 17th century the satirist Jonathan Swift observed that
whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together.
I fear that the public perception of politicians may not have changed much in the intervening centuries, but the role of farmers has changed considerably, particularly during the past decade.
As a farmer's son, I would not wish to make any proposals that would penalise agriculture, which is Britain's largest and most successful industry. We can, however, assume that there is a need to curb agricultural production. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) have both introduced packages of measures with that intention. They would, I believe, be the first to pay tribute to the farming community—3 per cent. of our population who produce some 85 per cent. of our temperate foodstuffs and export a substantial amount of food each year.
Ideally, we should try to control production in a way that does not disadvantage farmers or their incomes, and combine it with the environmental advantages that would flow from less intensive farming methods. To date, we have tried controlling production both by quotas on individual commodities and by price restraint. But quotas that deal with one commodity in isolation, such as milk, have a major flaw—because if a farmer cannot produce that commodity, he must produce something else There is then a greater and growing risk of oversupply of other foodstuffs.
Equally, mild price restraint results in greater production because that is the natural reaction of farmers who wish to preserve their living standards. Above all, there is the dreadful policy of food intervention buying and storage, thereby converting first-quality products into third-quality products, which are sold off at rock bottom prices to those living under Socialist Administrations who know no better and who can afford no better.
The National Economic Development Office's 1987 report entitled "Land Use in the 1990s" suggests that the United Kingdom needs to shed 1·5 million productive hectares or 14 per cent. of our land area by the mid-1990s. However, there is little point taking 14 per cent. of land out of production if the remaining 86 per cent. will be increasingly intensively farmed.
For all those reasons, now is the time to consider supply side control. If we are serious about controlling production, we must look at the means of production. I am pleased to note that the National Farmers Union is seriously considering these suggestions. The means of production are almost wholly good. They include better plant breeding, modern machinery, skilled labour, and most pesticides and fertilisers. However, we must carefully examine the dramatic increase in the use of nitrogenous


fertilisers; that is, inorganic nitrogen. I quote from the bible on that issue, which is the 1962 edition of "Fream's Elements of Agriculture". It states that
the effects of nitrogen-containing manures upon plant growth are amongst the most spectacular which can be achieved by manuring, for nitrogen is the food material which is especially responsible for growth, particularly of foliage and stems.
If that was evident in 1962, it is doubly so in 1989 when the reduction in the farm labour force and modern machinery make it more convenient for farmers to apply large quantities of artificial fertilisers than to apply bulky farmyard manure to fields in the traditional and labour-intensive way.
The main contributor to increased production of foodstuffs is nitrogen, which no longer arrives in half-hundredweight bags but usually in 1 tonne sacks. With land valued at about £2,000 per acre, obviously it is to the farmer's advantage to apply additional nitrogen—just 6 lb per hundredweight—substantially to increase plant growth and by that his crop yields.
My Bill provides for the restriction of nitrogen application; that is, a limited number of units per acre with no transfers between farmers but a subsidy to those who do not take up their full allocation. I have already stated that the proposals are advantageous to the farming community, the countryside and the environment. The advantages to farmers are as follows. First, controlling production on a European-wide basis means that supply and demand will be better balanced, which must be in the long-term interests of the industry. Secondly, the farmer will again be able to choose which enterprises best suit his or her farm and pocket. Farmers will be free to adapt to changing circumstances as they see fit.
Thirdly, the proposals favour extensive rather than intensive farming systems, and will inconvenience mainly those who use the largest amounts of nitrogen—especially continuous grain and intensive dairy farmers, who collectively are the worst culprits in respect of overproduction of agricultural products. Even they can easily adapt. The intensive dairy farmer, for example, could purchase additional grass keep in the neighbourhood, which is a logical form of extensification. Finally, my proposals will encourage crop rotations, which are good for the land. Most farmers realise that they are merely custodians of the land for their lifetimes and that the land should always be left in good heart.
The Bill would also bring benefits to the land in general. Nitrogen encourages plant growth, and the fastest growing

plants are most encouraged. It logically follows that wild or slow-growing plants become rare where nitrogen is frequently and heavily applied.
An even more topical aspect is the nitrate level in water courses. Nitrate-sensitive areas have already been proposed. The Rothamstead experimental station's aptly entitled report "Keeping the Balance" points out that the amount of nitrogen applied is only one of many factors affecting nitrogen levels in our water supplies and that particular care should be exercised when applications of fertiliser are made in the autumn, for example, when rainfall levels exceed those of evaporation. However, the application rate is a factor, and the public are rightly concerned that high nitrate levels in water supplies can be cancer-inducing—though I understand that that remains to be proved.
An interesting article in The Times on 24 November 1988 observed that to treat water intended for drinking in order to remove nitrates would impose unacceptably high costs on the water authorities, which I accept. Prevention is better than a cure, and in most cases the best long-term solution must be to reduce the quantities of nitrates that reach surface and ground water supplies by changing agricultural practices, so that the need for treatment will not arise.
For all those reasons, nitrates should be controlled. We may then be able to do away with the common agricultural policy, and all the fraud, intervention and food storage schemes that together cost far more than any subsidies to farmers. An excellent leader in The Daily Telegraph on 13 May headed "Yoke them together" noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment requires less intensive farming methods for the benefit of the environment, and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seeks to curb food surpluses. Those aims are mutually compatible, and my Bill should please both my right hon. Friends.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Greg Knight, and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

AGRICULTURE (CONTROL OF NITRATES)

Mr. Roger Knapman accordingly presented a Bill to restrict the use of nitrogenous fertilisers: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 7 June, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you kindly indicate why the two new clauses tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) were not selected. They were designed to close loopholes in earlier employment legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make the speech that he might have made had his clauses been selected. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he complains that the clauses he tabled were not selected by Mr. Speaker. Is that the case?

Mr. Riddick: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not required to give reasons for the non-selection of amendments.

Mr. Riddick: I entirely accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I may point out that the purpose of the Bill, apart from amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, is to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Chair is not required to give explanations for the non-selection of amendments. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate why his clauses were not selected.

New Clause 12

DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF AGE

`It shall he unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may discriminate against any person on the grounds that he is older or younger than any other person or persons in:

(a) any advertisement or other arrangement made to notify prospective employees, or
(b) the methods of determining who should be offered employment, or
(c) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or
(d) refusing to offer employment.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Meacher: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I point out to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that, as his name is not among those associated with new clause 12, it must be moved formally by an hon. Member who is.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to debate new clause 13—Discrimination on grounds of unemployment—

`It shall be unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may discriminate against any person because of current or previous periods of unemployment by:

(a) the methods of determining who should be offered employment, or
(b) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or
(c) refusing to offer employment.'.

Mr. Meacher: Age discrimination, which is the topic of new clause 12, is potentially the most wide-ranging form of discrimination in employment. It could affect everyone at some time in their lives. It is obviously in direct defiance of the principle of equality of opportunity which was defined by the Equal Opportunities Commission as follows:
individuals should be judged as individuals according to their merits and not on the basis of a characteristic ascribed to them arbitrarily because they are members of a group".
That definition would commend itself to both sides of the House and it is clearly breached by discrimination on grounds of age.
There have been two private Members' Bills in Parliament this year to outlaw age discrimination. The Employment (Age Limits) Bill was introduced in the other place and the Employment Age Discrimination Bill was presented to the House by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). Neither is likely to succeed without Government support.
The Government seem to have a schizophrenic view of the matter. On one hand, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said:
It is both irresponsible and unfair to discriminate without justification on the grounds of age."—[Official Report, 15 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 250.]
The Opposition very much support that view. On the other hand, in their evidence to the Employment Select Committee on 7 December 1988, the Government refused to take action, stating as their reason:
it would be neither practical nor beneficial to legislate to prevent age discrimination in employment".
Yet other countries do not take that view and have legislation to prohibit age discrimination.
The United States Age Discrimination in Employment Act has existed for 22 years. That Act, as amended, prohibits age-based employment discrimination against individuals aged 40 and above. Under the Act., it is unlawful for employers to fail or refuse to hire, to dismiss or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such an individual's age It is also unlawful for employers to limit, segregate or classify an employee in any way that would deprive the employee of job opportunities or adversely affect employment status because of age. If that can be done in the United States, why can it not be done here?
In Canada, since 1978, when the Canadian Human Rights Act came into effect, it has been unlawful to discriminate in employment on grounds of age. Unlike the American Act, there is no minimum age requirement—the Act prohibits discrimination against all ages.
Furthermore, Britain is a founder member and signatory to the International Labour Organisation—I am well aware that the Government take a fairly flippant and nonchalant view of the ILO, but it is an important international authority. Its older workers recommendation states:
each member should, with the framework of national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment for


workers, whatever their age … take measures for the prevention of discrimination in employment and occupation with regard to older workers".
The problem of age discrimination is not a minor one. In its 1988 study, the EOC found that 27 per cent. of employers specified an age requirement or bar in their vacancy advertisements. In The Sunday Times, an average of one third—varying between 17 per cent. and 59 per cent. of all employers—made an age requirement during the sample period. In the Institute of Personnel Management's magazine, 24 per cent. specified an age requirement, although the institute's equal opportunities code specifically advises against age discrimination in employment.
5.45 pm
The most frequent age requirement is as low as 25 to 35 years. That is why it is so serious for older workers. Not many right hon. and hon. Members present in the House would qualify. The EOC found that one quarter of advertisements specified under 45 years while one fifth specified under 35 years and no fewer than 96 per cent. of all job advertisements which specified an age required a person under 45, while nearly two thirds of advertisements required someone under 35. In The Sunday Times, half of all advertisements specifying ages required someone under 35. In Nine to Five, a London magazine specialising in clerical, secretarial and administrative jobs, almost all advertisements were for people under 35. That is quite serious and arresting for job opportunities for older people.
There are two other disturbing findings in current practice. First, the EOC found that even those employers who claim to be "equal opportunity employers" specified age bars in their advertisements. Secondly, after studying 150 equal opportunity statements, the EOC found that only one third covered age discrimination, although many included other non-statutory forms of discrimination such as class, employment status or sex. Therefore, age discrimination in job recruitment is extensive and unfair. There are many strong age stereotypes which, as we get older, it will no doubt give us some comfort to refute. MORI found that personnel directors and recruitment specialists believe that drive, ambition and health all decline with age, but the empirical evidence does not support those beliefs or other myths about older workers.
A famous study by a researcher called Dr. Gee that was published last year found, first, that age-related declines in productivity, mental efficiency and reaction times are all small. Secondly, many of the small mental losses which occur can be and are compensated by experience. Thirdly, older workers are more satisfied with their job, are less likely to leave an organisation for another job, and have lower rates of absenteeism and accidents at work. Fourthly, there is considerable individual variation in age-related losses which implies that employers should look at differences in individuals rather than age groups. Research has again pointed strongly to the need for action to be taken.
For those reasons, age discrimination, which is so unfair, creates angry and frustrated individuals who find overwhelming difficulty in getting job interviews because of age, and often despite successful interviews, have their applications ruled out on grounds of age. Once

unemployed, people's chance of getting a job decline with age, however unfair that might be. That is why it is so important to help them.
Decreases in unemployment in the past two years show that the younger one is, the more likely one is to find a job. Although unemployment fell by 27 per cent. among the under-25s and by just over II per cent. among those aged 25 to 44 who had been unemployed for five years or more, it actually increased by 3 per cent. among those aged 45 or over in the past two years. That is very disturbing.
Therefore, there are strong personal and individual reasons for supporting new clause 12. But there are other reasons.
Because of demographic trends, it is irresponsible to ignore the talents which older workers can contribute to the economy".
I am glad that the Minister was nodding as I was quoting from his Department's evidence to the Employment Select Committee. I strongly agree with those words. As they come from his Department and he agrees with them, I hope that today he will state that he is prepared to take action. Perhaps not surprisingly, strong attempts are being made to use indirect means to prohibit age discrimination when direct means are not available. According to the code of practice of the Equal Opportunities Commission,
an unjustifiable age limit could constitute unlawful indirect discrimination
on the ground of sex.
I shall give a further example from a number that have occurred recently to illustrate the problem. In Price v. the Civil Service Commission, Ms. Price, who was 36, claimed indirect sex discrimination because the executive officer's post that she had applied for was open only to people under 28. She argued that a considerably smaller proportion of women than men could comply with the age limit because more women were out of the labour market in their twenties having children. Significantly, the tribunal upheld her case.
The statutory authorities are highly sympathetic to complaints about age discrimination in job recruitment. They are prepared to accept arguments based, if necessary, on other criteria to achieve that end. It would clearly be much better if the law openly and directly prohibited discrimination on the grounds of age, which is the purpose of new clause 12, which I strongly commend to the House.
New clause 13 is designed to prevent discrimination against job applicants on the ground of long-term unemployment. I shall cite two surveys that illustrate the problem. The first was of 64 employers, which suggested that while only one in 10 employers would screen out newly unemployed people when recruiting, half would screen out those who had been out of work for a year or more. The second was a postal survey of 456 employers in four different local markets, which was followed up by case studies of 31 employers. It revealed that applicants were likely to be rejected simply because they were long-term unemployed people at least 50 per cent. of the time. The second survey meshes in closely with the conclusion of the first one. Smaller firms were significantly more likely to discriminate than larger ones. Interestingly, there was less discrimination against long-term unemployed people in Preston and Glasgow, where unemployment was more serious and many more jobless people had been out of work for a long time, than in Peterborough and Bournemouth, where unemployment was lower.
A further important finding was that people who had been out of work for a long time tended to use jobcentres or look in newspapers for vacancies and did not have access to specialised or informal job networks, whereby news of vacancies is spread by word of mouth, special notices or journals. We believe that this puts the focus for policy on the quality of information available to the employment service, which receives only about one third of all vacancies. In Sweden, employers are required by law to report nearly all vacancies to the employment services, which allows unemployed people a fairer crack of the whip at all the jobs going and gives the employment services better information about the pattern of vacancies in each local labour market so that it can plan more appropriate training programmes. We believe that that sensible system should be adopted here. The Labour party is committed to a high-quality employment service, and we intend to introduce such a system in Britain.
With or without that change, we are deeply concerned that unemployment has reduced least in the past three years among those who have been unemployed the longest. We strongly believe that there is a role for the law in countering discrimination as well as a role for advice and training of employers to counter prejudice before the problem is overcome and long-term unemployed people, who, we all surely agree, are among the most disadvantaged people in this country, are able to break out of the social and economic trap. That is why new clause 13 is so important, and I strongly urge the Government to accept it.

Mr. James Wallace: I give general support to the two new clauses.
The recent report of the Select Committee on Employment about employment of the over-50s is useful. Its attention was drawn to the many disadvantages facing the over-50s, not least discrimination against them by people over 50. The report said that many people in public life and companies do not take on jobs of considerable responsibility until they are over 50. Paragraph 10 of the report graphically summed up the problem. It said:
Age discrimination could quickly wither away if those who have the power to determine employment policies in the private and public sectors bothered to look in the mirror. If they are not too old at 50 neither are others.
There is a home truth in that graphic point.
Hon. Members receive a number of applications for the posts that they advertise. With the best will in the world, it is difficult to overcome certain prejudices when one receives an application from someone aged 45 or 50. One wonders why the applicant is not developing a career structure with the firm that may have been employing him for a number of years. Such prejudice must be overcome.
The suggestion involving employment services being required to ask employers whether an age limit is strictly necessary would go only so far in dealing with the problem. In reply, the Minister may find some technical problem with the drafting of the new clause. Nevertheless, the thrust behind it is appropriate, and only through some form of legislation will age discrimination be tackled.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made a telling point when he said that people find out about many jobs only by word of mouth or by a notice being placed on a staff room, works canteen or company notice board. Many jobs are never brought to the attention of people who have been unemployed for a long time.
Long-term unemployed people are discriminated against by the attitudes of many employers when sifting through job applications. They think that if a person has been unemployed a long time he is by definition unemployable and do not offer him the opportunity to present himself at interview and prove his worth. A report of the Campaign for Work said:
To quote just one study of 250 long term unemployed people in Hull, 80 per cent. of the sample were actively looking for work; nearly half said they were willing to leave Hull if work was offered elsewhere and of those able to take full-time work more than half would be satisfied with take-home pay of less than £100 per week".
It said that that was evidence of considerable motivation among those people.
The fact that people have been unemployed for a long time does not mean that they have lost their motivation. Community programme managers, when there were such people, reported that long-term unemployed people were quickly motivated after only a short time at work. Tragically, many of them never get the opportunity to show their motivation and ability to work. Perhaps employers need to be educated about such innate prejudice by a campaign drawing to their attention the merit and worth of people who are older or have been unemployed for a long time. If such a campaign failed, the fall-back of some statutory powers is equally necessary.

6 pm

Mr. Frank Haynes: I did not expect to be called so early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are very kind.
The Government have created the situation in which we find ourselves and that is why I support new clause 12. The Government have destroyed industry, and, in the wake of that, they have destroyed jobs. I come from a coal-mining area where pits have been closed willy-nilly and people have been put on the dole at the age of 40 and younger, yet job advertisements in the newspapers often have an age limit. That is a shocking state of affairs and the Government must wake up to the fact that they have a responsibility to such people.
I can see that the Minister is listening to what I am saying, just as he listened in Committee when I told him about the situation that the Government had created.. We come here to represent our constituents and to tell the Government about the position in our constituencies. What is happening in my constituency is also happening elsewhere, yet the Government try to create jobs by means of low wages.
Many of my constituents want a job but cannot get one. The pits have been closed and they have not been replaced with industry to create new jobs. We have appealed to the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Trade and Industry to use the land that results from a pit closure to give an incentive to industrialists to replace the jobs lost, but they do not want to know. Instead, they blame British Coal, saying that it wants to sell the land for something else. It is time that they put their heads together—or time that we knocked them together—and did something.
The Government should tell British Coal in no uncertain terms what to do with such land to create jobs for people who need them, having been thrown on the dole by the closure of industries resulting from the Government's policies. It is time that the Government woke up and did something. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 12. There should be no


discrimination against any person on the ground of age. The Government have created this position and it is time that they put things right in the interests of those whom they too are supposed to be representing.

Mr. Greville Janner: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is the best possible living argument for the fact that nobody should be discriminated against on the ground of age. It is only in the past few years, in the flowering of his youth, that his voice has developed to its full extent and he has been able to put forward his case with such restraint.
My late father, who some of my hon. Friends will remember, reached his maturity only when he gave up his seat at the age of 78 and went to another place so that I might succeed him. Now that I too am beginning to reach maturity, I recognise the usefulness and importance of the new clause.
I notice that hon. Members on the Government Front Benches have visibly aged since the time that they took up their monstrous task of destroying the employment security of the British people and, in particular, of ruining the law that protects people at work. When they took office they were bright, young and fresh and they were brought in for that reason. We are told that in the coming reshuffle they will be replaced by younger people.
I respectfully suggest that, as we grow older, there are fewer and fewer grounds for accepting discrimination. People should be accepted for what they are and for what they can do, irrespective of sex, race or trade union affiliation, all of which are protected in the sense that it is unlawful to discriminate on those grounds. They should also be protected here, as they are in the United States and Canada, from discrimination on the ground of age.
Discrimination is essential to all those who select for employment or promotion, for training or even for dismissal, but it must be discrimination lawfully exercised. I sit on the Select Committee for Employment and the report, which has been rightly referred to, shows how widespread sex discrimination has become in Britain. It also shows that it is not based on logic or sense. New clause 12 would enable us to get rid of that discrimination as and when we should.
The Select Committee heard evidence of what is happening in Britain. People are retiring earlier and acquiring what one witness called a portfolio of jobs, some paid and some unpaid. In many cases, they are working harder after they have retired than they did before, but it is difficult for them to be accepted for what they are when they are forced out of their jobs by early redundancy when they are older than 35. Today, early retirement in some jobs is beginning at 45 or 52.
It is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of age and I ask Ministers, in their own interests as well as in the interests of others, to reconsider any opposition to the new clause. The present system is daft. Men are forced to remain at work until they are 65 to obtain a state pension. People are forced out of work when they should not be and they are not permitted to compete on an equal basis because of their age. Discrimination on the grounds of age should be unlawful and this excellent new clause will ban it. I hope that the Government will support it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Those hon. Members who have spoken have correctly stated that the problem is one of discrimination against older people on the ground of age. However new clause 12 says that there should not be discrimination against any person on the grounds that he is older or younger. In some cases young people could be discriminated against because of a particular age bar. That element of new clause 12 may hold some appeal for the Government with their particular philosophy and the idea that there are natural whizz kids around.
However, the serious problem is the one that exists for older people. I am particularly aware of that problem, having acted as a director for access courses. People who study part-time on access courses and then enter full-time education might be out of the job market for a long time. They might spend at least two or three years in part-time education and then, depending which avenue they choose, they might go to university for three years or for five years if they have to attend a preparatory college course.
There are masses of people with great talent and the Government are supposed to be interested in assisting access courses. However, the student loan scheme does nothing to assist them. After such training many people will be able to come back into the job market having acquired new skills in a society that is increasingly subject to technological change which requires new skills. Those people will be older and should not be discriminated against for their own sakes and for the sake of society generally.
Clause 8 will lead to even more discrimination, giving us further grounds for saying that new clauses 12 and 13 are important. They cannot prevent the harmful consequences of the Bill, they can make some minor adjustments to try to improve a desperate situation. For example, measures in clause 8 will lead to more young people being employed and exploited which will in turn affect older people. If we remove the protections which prevent young people from working more than 48 hours a week and allow them to work on Sundays without a day in lieu and to be pushed on to night shifts and remove statutory meal breaks, young people can be considerably exploited by ruthless employers and can be used instead of older skilled people. That can result in youngsters being used to undermine the conditions and wages of older workers.
The Government hold the peculiar view that the decline in the birth rate, leading to fewer youngsters being in the employment market in years to come, will result in young workers having a fantastic bargaining position which will enable them to secure good wages and conditions. Were that to happen, it would have an impact on older workers, because younger workers would be given jobs in preference, especially in view of the changed conditions of which I spoke.
The way in which the YTS has operated makes it clear that schemes of that kind can be used by the Government to exploit young people and thereby undermine the negotiating power of older workers. For all those reasons, the proposed new clauses should be adopted, because they would at least slightly improve an otherwise terrible Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I and—the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will be pleased to hear—my youthful ministerial colleagues, have some


sympathy with the Opposition's intention in tabling the new clauses, which seek to outlaw discrimination by potential employers on the grounds of a person's age or because he or she is unemployed. The Government firmly believe that employers should recognise the valuable resource represented by applicants, whatever their age or history of unemployment.
It can clearly be wasteful for employers to refuse to consider applicants solely because they have or have not reached a certain age, or because they are unemployed. This is a message we have frequently sought to get across to employers—for example, in our Department's recent White Paper "Employment for the 1990s".
There are barriers of both prejudice and lack of knowledge to overcome. We believe that the best way to overcome these barriers is not by legislation but by encouraging and persuading employers to amend their personnel policies where necessary.
When taking details of vacancies, jobcentres try to persuade employers not to impose often arbitrary and usually unnecessary and pointless age restrictions. That has been longstanding policy, but instructions were strengthened in January of this year to ensure that where an employer insists on an age restriction, the employment service seeks to persuade him to treat it as a preference rather than an absolute requirement. The service will also contact an employer if a recruit becomes available who is suitable in all respects other than age.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the efforts which the Department makes in those respects have been failing, are failing and that there is no reason to suppose that they will not continue to fail?

Mr. Lee: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. As I shall show, increasingly employers who discriminate are realising the error of their ways, and the changing labour market profile and demographic changes will push them even more in the direction that we wish them to go.
Employers are showing increasing flexibility in this area. For example, Tesco's is already actively recruiting older workers to fill vacancies, and British Telecom is considering taking on and training older recruits to meet its need for skilled engineering staff. A substantial investment is also being made to help older unemployed people get jobs. Longer-term unemployed people up to the age of 60 are able to obtain guidance on ways back to work through the restart programme.
The employment training programme is open to people up to the age of 60 and offers unemployed older workers with out-of-date skills the opportunity to retrain through training packages tailored to their individual needs. Through offering work experience, it also allows them to show prospective employers their abilities.
The job club programme can also offer help to unemployed older workers through training them in how best to present themselves to prospective employers and how to make effective speculative approaches to employers who have not advertised vacancies.
For unemployed people who wish to become self-employed, the enterprise allowance scheme is available up to the age of 64. We have recently announced that a new part-time jobstart scheme for the over 50s is to be piloted in four areas. This will help unemployed older

people to get back into the job market by offering them an allowance of £20 a week if they take a part-time job earning up to £2·57 a hour.
The employment service is also taking practical steps through several initiatives to encourage employers to give more consideration to unemployed people in general. For example, in Greenwich the service is carrying out preliminary interviews for vacancies with Texas Homecare. In exchange, Texas has guaranteed to fill half of its vacancies from people who have been unemployed for six months or more. In other areas, companies have run mock interviews at jobclubs which have resulted in members finding jobs with the companies.
6.15 pm
We are taking further positive steps in that area. As hon. Members will know, our Department has recently announced the introduction of the job interview guarantee scheme for unemployed inner-city residents. It will initially be offered in 20 inner-city areas and will be available later this month. It will help not only to prepare long-term unemployed people to re-enter work and increase their opportunities to do so, but to break down employer reticence in considering longer-term unemployed people for such vacancies. It will link the assistance already offered by job clubs and the employment service with new measures. These will include a job preparation course, similar to the current restart course model, but with employers involved in tailoring the course content to meet their specific needs.
"Work trials" will offer unemployed people the chance to demonstrate for a short period their ability to undertake a job with a potential employer while they remain on benefit, allowing employers to reassure themselves about employing people who have been out of work for some time. In return for those services, employers will agree to interview all long-term unemployed people submitted in that way.
It is clear—and ultimately this is far more effective than the new clauses—that demographic trends will put real pressure on employers to consider a much wider range of applicants than they might do at present. Employers will need to give greater consideration to older workers and to unemployed people for their vacancies.
As I have explained, some employers are already taking a sensible lead in doing that. Indeed, it is obvious that that is already happening, as the record falls in unemployment over the last 33 months testify. Employers who fail to improve their personnel practices will learn the hard way that it is in their own economic interests to ensure that they heed the messages that the Government are putting over on these issues.
Question put and negatived.

New Clause 15

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PERSONS

'.—(1) Section 10(2) of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 shall be amended as follows—
(2) In paragraph (a) the words ", which shall not be less than 3%," shall be inserted after the words "a standard percentage".'.—[Mr. Wareing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following:
New clause 16—Proceedings under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944—
'. —(1) Section 19 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 shall be amended as follows—
(2) Subsection (1) shall cease to have effect.
(3) In subsection (2) the words "brought by the Minister" shall be inserted after "proceedings for an offence under this Act".'.
New clause 17—Discrimination on grounds of disability—
'It shall be unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may unreasonably discriminate against any person on the grounds that they are disabled in—

(a) any advertisement or other arrangement made to notify prospective employees, or
(b) the methods of determining who shall be offered employment, or
(c) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or
(d) refusing to offer employment.'

Mr. Wareing: The new clause would enshrine in an Act of Parliament for the first time the 3 per cent. figure often accepted as the quota for disabled people as a percentage of a work force. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 mentions only "a standard percentage". That was determined to be 2 per cent. by a statutory rule and order in 1945 and to be 3 per cent. by the Disabled Persons (Standard Percentage) Order No. 1258 of 25 July 1946.
The new clause gives the Government an opportunity to address the problem. Current rumours are giving great concern to organisations representing disabled people and require an answer, for the rumours are that the Government intend to abolish the quota system. No doubt Thatcherite principles will dictate that the quota system is a burden on employers. Compassion plays no part in the race to surrender everything to the hidden and often grotesque hand of the market.
One would have expected the Government to give a lead in ensuring that in their Departments at least 3 per cent. of the work force was disabled. This afternoon I received a written answer to a question that I put to the Prime Minister about the number of registered disabled people employed by the Cabinet Office. I was told:
There are 16 registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office, which represents approximately 1 per cent. of the total work force, and none at 10 Downing street.
The answer added, ironically:
The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer".
The right hon. Lady could have fooled all of us. Indeed, she will be trying to do that if it is suggested that the Government want to adhere to the 3 per cent. quota.
The number of people who chose to register under the 1984 Act fell from 936,196 in 1950 to 389,273 in 1986. This signifies a complete lack of confidence on the part of disabled people in the adequacy of the existing law and even more in the willingness of the Government fully to apply and implement—to use the Prime Minister's own word—the law as it now stands.
It is rather interesting that more than 1,230,000 people have registered with local authorities as disabled under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which shows that people have more confidence that local authorities may try to provide them with services than in their providing them with suitable employment.
The percentage of employers abiding by the law and meeting the quota fell from 53·2 per cent. in 1965 to 26·8

per cent. in 1986. In 1986, 56 per cent. of employers were not meeting the quota and were being issued with permits by the Minister's Department. It was even true in 1986 that no fewer than 17·2 per cent. of those not meeting the quota had no permit to break the law—I insist, "break the law".
If the Government are considering the quota system in their internal review, as the Minister has told me in answer to a parliamentary question, they should take on board the views of disabled people's organisations. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf says of the quota system:
despite some calls for its abolition we believe it should be retained, strengthened and enforced.
The Spastics Society, in consulting its members in April this year, found that
Most favoured the retention of the quota system and the majority of these argued strongly for stricter enforcement and fewer exemptions.
The Government may argue that this is one of those famous burdens on industry. They are not too worried about burdens on the disabled, but they are worried about burdens on industry. However, it is hardly a burden on industry when it can so easily be lifted by Tory Ministers, as has happened in the past five years. In each of the past five years Ministers have issued over 18,000 permits. I should like to know what the criteria are that lead Ministers to exempt so many employers. The law is certainly needed, but it also needs to be applied. This is something else that Tory Governments in particular have failed to do.
Since the 1944 Act, there have been only 10 prosecutions. The last one was in 1975, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I understand. Only one of those prosecutions was during the lifetime of a Tory Government, and that was in 1973. Of the 10 cases that have been heard, two were dismissed and one employer received only an admonition. Fines covering the other seven cases totalled only £434. So there is a case for stiffening the law, and new clause 16 would enable people other than the Minister to take proceedings against employers who deliberately break the law.
New clause 17 is, if anything, the most important of these clauses because for the first time it will enable the House of Commons to vote on the question of discrimination against disabled persons. There have been disgraceful events such as the one on 18 November 1983 when my own private Member's Bill to outlaw all discrimination against disabled people was "unofficially" whipped against by the Government and there was a vote on a closure. This is the first time that we can vote on discrimination against disabled people on matters of employment. Incidentally, by pushing forward the boundaries of equal opportunities, we shall be doing what would have been done had a Labour Government been in office after 1979 because in 1979 my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe appointed the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, which recommended that Government should take action to outlaw discrimination, particularly in this vital area of employment.
The first seven clauses of this Bill deal inadequately with the question of discrimination on grounds of sex. It is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex or of ethnic origin or race, but it is still perfectly legal in this country that calls itself civilised for an employer deliberately to


discriminate against a person because he or she is disabled. I believe that the time has now come for the abolition of this scourge of disabled people.
The number of disabled people is very great. We know from the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that 6 million people in our country are disabled. The Royal College of Physicians estimates that approximately one person in 10 is physically disabled and that about 2 million of those people are of working age. Yet only 31 per cent. of disabled people of working age are in paid employment. That is according to the Government's own OPCS survey—and I tell the Minister this because he seemed in some doubt about it some weeks ago.
The degree of unemployment among disabled people is enormous, and the more severe the disability the worse it is, so that 48 per cent. of disabled people in severity category 1 are working but only 2 per cent. in severity category 10 are working. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has estimated that there are in this country 1·4 million adults of working age with a clinically significant loss of hearing, but that only 50,000 who are profoundly deaf are in the working population. So there is quite clearly a job to be done, and the Opposition believe that the Bill provides the opportunity to do something.
When we look at the question of unemployment among disabled people we find that not only are they discriminated against, not only are they the people who are most likely to be without a job, but they are also the ones who are most likely to be without a job for the longest time. Whereas only 8 per cent. of non-disabled people have been jobless for more than two years, no fewer than 26 per cent. of disabled job seekers have been jobless for more than two years.
The Government's willingness to tackle the problem can be measured by the fact that between 1981 and 1985 they cut the number of disablement resettlement officers by 30 per cent. and reduced the training period of those officers to two weeks—a measly two weeks to train people to do a vital job for a part of the community which has talents that should be taken into account. I believe that far too often society takes more account of the supposed incapabilities of disabled people than of their capabilities.
That discrimination exists there can be no doubt. The Spastics Society survey in 1986 showed that 152 secretarial jobs were applied for and two applications based on two standard letters were sent out for those jobs. Where there was no disability involved, 97 per cent. of the applicants received positive responses. Where a disability was mentioned, only 59 per cent. received positive responses. There is also much anecdotal evidence of which the Minister should be aware, although I doubt whether he is, and should be exploring as the Minister responsible for the disabled.
It is not only an absence of job opportunities but an absence of adequate earnings that faces so many disabled people. The average gross weekly earnings of male full-time workers is £192·40, whereas for disabled male full-time workers the figure is only £156·70. That is 81 per cent. of the average wages of the working population.
6.30 pm
The figures I am quoting are from the OPCS survey—the Government's own survey. When gross weekly earnings are broken down by severity category, the differences are even more stark. For male full-time

employees in severity categories 1 and 2, the level of earnings is only 86 per cent. of that for the average working population. Men who are categorised in group 5 or above receive only 72 per cent. of the average earnings of their non-disabled counterparts. That disparity is seen even when the figures are broken down into hourly rates of pay. For categories 1 and 2, the hourly rate is 90 per cent. of the rate paid to able-bodied workers. For categories 5 and above, the figure is only 74 per cent.
The discrimination in earnings has obvious repercussions on the living standards and lifestyles of disabled people. The cost of disability must be taken into account, as well as the low amounts that so many disabled people receive. Those who are on the lower incomes find that they have to make choices about priorities. The need to spend extra on disability-related items may result in a lower standard of living than that of non-disabled people on the same income level.
It could be argued that our proposal is in line with previous statutory provisions and actually strengthens them. I remind the Minister that the Companies (Directors' Report) (Employment of Disabled Persons) Regulations 1980, administered by the Department of Trade and Industry, require information to be given in directors' reports on what is being done to train, employ and promote the career prospects of disabled employees. It is time to act. The Government should act in combination with the Department of Trade and Industry to strengthen the cause of giving a wider choice to disabled people. After all, this Government talk about freedom and choice, yet the only thing that they seem to give disabled people is sympathy. Disabled people require more than sympathy; they require positive action. Any Government with a semblance of humanity would endorse the new clauses.
The Government's response will be watched carefully by the 6 million disabled people in our country. I hope that the recent report that the Government are planning to axe disability allowances for those who take up employment training is not a precursor of what to expect when it comes to tackling the real problems of disabled people in the labour market. I hope that the House will endorse the new clauses. If it does not, it will be to the detriment of the Government in the near future, who will have to face the wrath of that large minority of the population who are disabled and the wrath of the members of their families.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I want to speak briefly in support of the new clauses. Throughout the years, various Governments have tried to end the quota system and the argument they use is that persuasion is better than prosecution. The fact that their unemployment figures are so high and that so many disabled people are short of employment makes an absurdity of that claim. We need both persuasion and prosecution. We need to persuade some employers to accept their moral and legal obligations to employ registered disabled people as 3 per cent. of their labour force. We also need to prosecute those who are breaking the law, when persuasion fails. It is essential that we should now do both.
The Government must stop evading the issue and they should ensure that the quota is fully implemented. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, break the law by parking your car on a double yellow line, or by stealing cash from a store, you are prosecuted—and rightly so. The same is true of any hon. Member. But employers who break the law by failing


to fulfil the quota and then by taking on non-disabled workers without a permit are not prosecuted. This Government are condoning law-breaking and that is wholly inexcusable.
There is no substitute for the quota unless the Government are prepared to bring in a levy system. If the Government want to drop the quota, let them bring in a levy system, which imposes a levy on those employers who will not employ disabled people as 3 per cent. of the work force. That is fine. We would then have good employers who employed disabled people as 3 per cent. of their work force and bad employers who would not, but who would pay nevertheless. That is why the Government should either enforce the quota or bring in a levy of 3 per cent. of the payroll, to be paid to the good employers.
The amount of discrimination against disabled people in Britain is appalling. Severely disabled people find that every day of their lives, especially in jobs and in applications for jobs. Unless this Government take action, severely disabled people will continue to suffer abysmal discrimination. As the OPCS report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, we cannot seek to justify any kind of wild discrimination. All we are trying to do is to outlaw unjustified discrimination, as the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People pointed out. The best way of tackling discrimination is to outlaw it, as is being done in other countries, such as the United States and Australia, and there is no reason why we should not do that.
Today I wear three hats. I am the chairman of the all-party disablement group. We deplore the failure of employers to fulfil the quota. As chairman of that group, I speak for hon. Members of all parties. We want to keep the quota and we want it to be enforced properly. I also speak as president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. That organisation feels deeply about the discrimination against deaf people in employment. I also speak as a disabled person. We resent the discrimination against all kinds of disabled people, we regret it and we ask the Government to act. That is all we are seeking. We do not seek punitive or wild measures, just reasonably firm action to ensure that disabled people get a decent chance of a job.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Disabled people have been the victims of unemployment in the past decade more often than fit people. That is true not only of industry in general, but even of Remploy, the organisation especially devoted to helping provide jobs for disabled people. We have seen stagnation in certain sections there. I represent a part of Remploy which has seen stagnation and reduction. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us how many extra jobs have been created in Remploy for disabled people in the past decade. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was right to demand a categorical assurance from the Minister that the quota system, which the new clauses seek to improve, will not be abolished and is not being threatened by any proposed Government changes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, we are talking not only about disabled people who are unemployed but about those in

employment, who are paid lower wages than other people. There is nothing more degrading for disabled people than being paid poor wages—except, that is, being unemployed.
My hon. Friend said that disabled people were being paid £150 a week, compared with a national average of £190. I remind the House of the wages paid to those in the one organisation that is devoted to offering job opportunities in manufacturing to disabled people. I refer to those in Remploy, who earn £90 a week. The level at which the Government pay income support is £110 a week. The TUC threshold level is £133 a week. The wages of those in Remploy come nowhere near that, let alone the European decency wages of £141 a week. That means that even those employed in the organisation that has been specially devoted to creating and maintaining employment for the disabled are some of the poorest wage earners in the country. Those people deserve a much better deal.
Since 1980, the gap between the income of those in Remploy and those outside it has grown. Remploy workers' wages used to be related to those paid for local government work. In 1980 the difference in wages between those inside Remploy and those outside it was 12p a week; in 1989, the difference is £11 a week. Not only have opportunities stagnated in many sections of Remploy; there is a growing gap between the wages paid to its workers and those paid elsewhere.
I wholeheartedly support the new clause, which would increase the quota. We demand from the Minister a categorical assurance that there is no suggestion that the Government will abolish the quota system—as it has been suggested they will abolish wages councils. At the same time, I underline the point that even those disabled people who are in employment—and particularly in Remploy—are some of the poorest paid workers in the country.

Mr. Lee: The new clauses would affect in various ways the arrangements for ensuring that people with disabilities can obtain and retain suitable employment. Although I am in sympathy with the motives underlying them, they are all of doubtful value as a means of achieving improvements in this very important area.
New clause 15 would make it impossible to lower the standard percentage of registered disabled people under the quota scheme from its current level of 3 per cent. Registration under the Act is voluntary and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said the number of people who choose to register has declined steadily—from more than 660,000 in 1961 to fewer than 375,000 in 1988. It is therefore now impossible for all employers who fall within the scope of the quota scheme to achieve the 3 per cent. figure. It would be unwise, therefore, not to retain the flexibility to lower the percentage if it were judged that that would increase the quota scheme's effectiveness.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister tell the House the percentage of disabled people who work in the Palace of Westminster? Then we shall see whether the Government should be prosecuted.

Mr. Lee: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I do not have that figure with me—

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Member should have.

Mr. Lee: —and indeed, it is not my personal ministerial responsibility.
Although I should emphasise that we currently have no plans to do this, it seems to me perfectly possible that, at some time in the future, circumstances might make it appropriate to move to a lower figure.

Mr. Rowlands: I am trying to ascertain what the Minister has just mumbled to us. Was he talking about lowering the quota or actually abolishing it? Will he give us a categorical assurance that the Government do not contemplate abolishing the quota?

Mr. Lee: What I would say is that the quota is one of many items under consideration in the overall review that we are undertaking. That has been made perfectly clear.
New clause 16 would end the current arrangement whereby the power to bring or authorise prosecutions for offences under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 is restricted to this Department. It has been the policy of successive Governments, since the Act was first introduced, to bring prosecutions only as a last resort and to pursue a policy of education and persuasion designed to secure and improve the policies and practices of all employers in relation to the employment of people with disabilities. There is no evidence that the current policy on prosecutions has led to a major problem of employers failing to employ people with disabilities. Although 76 per cent. of eligible firms are below the standard percentage, this is largely because of the decline in numbers of registered disabled people. In any event, no offence is committed unless they recruit someone other than a registered disabled person without first obtaining a permit to do so.

Mr. Wallace: I understood the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) to say that the number of registered disabled people had fallen so much because of a lack of confidence in the quota system. To some extent, it is a chicken and egg situation, I suppose, but will the Minister respond to the specific criticism made by the hon. Member for West Derby?

Mr. Lee: As anyone concerned with these matters will concede one of the problems is that we just do not know the size of the market or the size of the problem. That is one of the reasons why my Department is undertaking a major survey whose results we expect to have by the end of the year.
Many employers have other employees who could have registered disabled but who have chosen not to do so. I believe that our policy, backed up, as it is, with practical help to individuals to assist them to overcome problems that they face as a result of their disability, is the best way of securing a genuine commitment among employers to employing people with disabilities.
New clause 17, which seeks to make it unlawful for employers to discriminate against potential employees on the grounds of their disability, is similarly inconsistent with the Government's line. There may be discrimination, although its scale is not clear. The Government believe that encouragement to employers to adopt good practices, combined with practical help in doing so, is the right way forward, and preferable to anti-discrimination measures such as that proposed in the new clause, which would

undoubtedly be difficult and costly to enforce and possibly even counter-productive, making a constructive approach by employers less likely.
The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that people with disabilities are given appropriate help in obtaining and retaining employment. We maintain a wide range of services which provide invaluable assistance to a large number of people with disabilities who are seeking employment or who are already in employment.
We are currently reviewing all our services and have commissioned a major survey of the number and characteristics of people with disabilities. The first draft of the consultative document is being considered by Ministers—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On the subject of that first draft, the Minister has suggested that a degree of flexibility will be required. The law regarding the employment of disabled people passed in 1944 said that not less than 3 per cent. of a given work force should be disabled. The new clause seeks to achieve what was intended then. For 45 years we have had no success in persuading employers to abide by the law. The Department has issued permits of exemption, which shows that the Government have no intention of ensuring that the law is abided by. The first draft has fallen short of what should be the aim, and the Minister has even come here without relevant figures—even those for the disabled employed in the Palace of Westminster or in Government Departments. His sincerity is in question.

Mr. Lee: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's points suggest to us the need for the flexibility that we seek. I reiterate my earlier comment that the whole question of the quota is being looked at in the review that is under way. We shall take the figures to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred into consideration in the consultative document. We are pledged to publish that document and consult interested parties. Our considered view is that the new clauses would not help the continuing development of appropriate provision.

Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister take the opportunity to tell us what criteria his Department uses in granting permits to allow employers to avoid the quota system?

Mr. Lee: I should have thought that the answer was fairly obvious—the criteria would be the requirements of the particular employer and the numbers of disabled people available for employment in the relevant jobcentre areas. Those would be the dominant considerations, together with any other sensible and realistic evidence. I hope that the Opposition will not press the amendments, but if they do we shall resist them.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a compelling case and I congratulate him on his speech. These are very important matters for disabled people, and their representatives have made it strikingly clear that they want the legislative change sought by the amendments.
My hon. Friend recalled that in 1979, as the then Minister for the Disabled, I set up the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People—CORAD—to establish the nature and extent of discrimination and whether legislation was required. Many of the submissions to CORAD stated that


 … cases of discrimination are serious and widespread.
Hundreds of responses gave specific and very disquieting examples. There was discrimination against the disabled then, as there is now, and it is deplorable that the Government's reaction to that committee's report has been so utterly negative.
CORAD strongly recommended legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. It asked for legislation similar to that designed to protect women and ethnic minorities, to prevent
 … the unjustifiable withholding, whether intentional or not, of some service, facility or opportunity from a disabled person because of that person's disability.
As well as providing legal protection and redress, legislation would, as both CORAD and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in his speech tonight emphasised, also affect people's attitudes and behaviour through education, persuasion and example.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 already establishes disabled people's rights in important areas such as housing, personal social services and access. CORAD reported the many notable improvements in those and many other areas during the first 10 years of the Act, but there has been scant progress since. This is an opportunity to make progress that would be welcomed by many of the major national organisations of and for disabled people.
The figures for unemployment among disabled job seekers shout of discrimination against them. They suffer from low pay and lack of opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby should be congratulated both on the amendments and on his earlier attempt to legislate against discrimination by means of a private Member's Bill. As he said, the House has its first opportunity tonight to vote on discrimination against disabled people. I welcome that opportunity and ask all who wish to show their concern for what people with disabilities are seeking for themselves to support the amendments.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER having directed that the doors he locked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I direct the doors to be reopened for another two minutes.
Whereupon the doors were unlocked.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if the timing for the Division could he checked. It appears to me that the Division started at 6.54 pm and that the order to lock the doors was given at 7 pm, thus allowing only six minutes instead of eight minutes to vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier. There was an error, and I instructed the doors to be locked too early. It was for that reason that I instructed the doors to be unlocked. They are still unlocked.

The House having divided: Ayes 169, Noes 259.

Division No. 221]
[6.53 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald


Alton, David
Archer, Rt Hon peter





Armstrong, Hilary
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Illsley, Eric


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Janner, Greville


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Battle, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Beckett, Margaret
Kennedy, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Bell, Stuart
Lamond, James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Leighton, Ron


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Terry


Bidwell, Sydney
Livsey, Richard


Blunkett, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Eddie


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Ian


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Buckley, George J.
McKelvey, William


Caborn, Richard
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Canavan, Dennis
Meacher, Michael


Cartwright, John
Meale, Alan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Michael, Alun


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clay, Bob
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Clelland, David
Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cohen, Harry
Morgan, Rhodri


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morley, Elliott


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cousins, Jim
Mullin, Chris


Crowther, Stan
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Prescott, John


Dobson, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Doran, Frank
Randall, Stuart


Douglas, Dick
Redmond, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Reid, Dr John


Eadie, Alexander
Richardson, Jo


Eastham, Ken
Robertson, George


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Fatchett, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Faulds, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


Fearn, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ruddock, Joan


Fisher, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian


Flannery, Martin
Sheerman, Barry


Flynn, Paul
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Short, Clare


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fraser, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Galbraith, Sam
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Snape, Peter


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steinberg, Gerry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Stott, Roger


Gould, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Straw, Jack


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Turner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Vaz, Keith


Grocott, Bruce
Wall, Pat


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Wallace, James


Hinchliffe, David
Walley, Joan


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wareing, Robert N.


Howells, Geraint
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hoyle, Doug
Williams, Rt Hon Alan






Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Allen Adams.


Young, David (Bolton SE)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Alexander, Richard
French, Douglas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fry, Peter


Amos, Alan
Gardiner, George


Arbuthnot, James
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Atkins, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Baldry, Tony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gow, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hague, William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boswell, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hannam, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heddle, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butler, Chris
Hind, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howard, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Irvine, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert


Curry, David
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, James


Durant, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knox, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman'


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lang, Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Latham, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lee, John (Pendle)


Franks, Cecil
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)





Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lilley, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCrindle, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sackville, Hon Tom


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maclean, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Sims, Roger


Major, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maples, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Tony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Speller, Tony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Summerson, Hugo


Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thorne, Neil


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mudd, David
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Patnick, Irvine
Wheeler, John


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Pawsey, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Nicholas


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Price, Sir David
Yeo, Tim


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Redwood, John



Renton, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. David Lightbowne and


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is my pleasure to introduce the Second Reading of the Bill. It is said that:
It would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a further market in the part of the borough known as Ilford notwithstanding the infringement or non-compliance thereby with any rule of law or enactment:
Many towns already have local markets but Ilford in the London borough of Redbridge is prevented from doing so because of the existence of other markets nearby. The purpose of the Bill is to give the right to establish a market that most other boroughs already have. In the neighbouring borough of Havering, which includes Romford, in 1247, in the reign of Henry III, a royal writ was issued establishing a market. The council today holds markets everywhere in Romford on every Wednesday throughout the year. Havering council claims the legal fiction of a "lost modern grant", which enables it to hold a market at Romford on Saturdays throughout the year. Havering also holds a statutory Food Act market on Fridays throughout the year at Romford. Thus Havering council holds three markets on premier trading days of the week and, because two of its markets—the Wednesday and Saturday markets—enjoy the benefit of protection under the common law, no other market may be established within a distance of 6¾ miles from Romford.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that, as a good old-fashioned Tory, he does not agree with market forces, and that somehow or other he wants those markets protected, or is it that he is a good old-fashioned Tory, but that this knighted Tory, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), is not interested in market forces? I want to get this clear, because this could be a long evening. I want to know which is the Thatcherite and which is the Heathite. Will the hon. Gentleman explain before we go any further?

Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, has put his finger on a very interesting point. I assure him that I believe in the free market. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will no doubt try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and explain his position later.
Because the markets on Wednesday and Saturday enjoy the benefit of protection under the common law, no other market may be established within a distance of 6¾ miles from Romford. The 6¾ miles represent the 13th century jurist Bracton's concept of one third the Roman dieta. The Roman thought was that one could travel 20 miles in a day. Therefore, to travel to a market should take a third of a day, one should spend a third of a day at the market and another third going back, which would allow one to travel 6¾ miles in each direction. That is the basis on which this present custom continues.
Ilford lies within the 6¾ mile radius and the Ilford town centre, which is the main shopping centre of the Redbridge local authority area, is therefore deprived of its statutory powers by that ancient common law right. It now wishes to establish a market of its own.
In this increasingly sophisticated economy, we find that more and more people expect to shop in a wide variety of shops. They want value, choice and diversity. In order to do that properly, we find that a lot of traders expect to have a market nearby. It was not so long ago that markets tended to be rather scruffy and untidy, but that is now in the past. The majority of markets are high quality, well-designed areas, where one can expect to buy exotic fruits and vegetables at the one end of the spectrum and antiques and craftwork at the other.

Mr. Skinner: What about monocles?

Mr. Thorne: They probably sell those too.
These markets actually encourage conventional retail trade and they are, therefore, welcomed by conventional traders, whereas in the past markets were generally considered to be derogatory and most ordinary traders preferred that they should not be permitted to run side by side with conventional shops.
An efficient and well-run market has become an essential part of any well-developed shopping centre and Redbridge council, having put in a bypass, now wishes to take full advantage of modern shopping methods. A new shopping centre is being developed by the pension funds of some insurance companies. Substantial sums are being invested on behalf of pensioners in that area. Those companies and the shopkeepers locally are very anxious that there should be an open-air market in the Ilford area. The present proposal is that a market shall be permitted within one mile of Ilford town centre.
The traders' association and the local chamber of trade have given this matter full support, and in the past couple of weeks they have been at some pains to obtain signatures to a petition. More than 6,500 people have already signed the petition in favour of such a market.

Mr. Kevin Barron: How many people from Romford have signed the petition for that market?

Mr. Thorne: I have not examined the petition to see how many people from Romford have signed it, but, if the House allows me to speak later, I shall endeavour to make a rough calculation and tell the hon. Gentleman.
The question of the 6¾ miles has already been referred to in a recent case by the Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery Division of the High Court as archaic. I believe that the majority of people would consider such an arbitrary distance now to be quite archaic.
As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has suggested, there may be some people with vested interests who would be against such a proposal and would oppose it, especially those from the Romford area. However, I assure him that that is not universal. Many people in Romford support the opportunity of market facilities being provided in the area. If the hon. Gentleman is interested and looks at a map of the markets in the region, he will see that there is an acute shortage of markets in that part of London. One of the reasons that the London borough of Redbridge is promoting the Bill is to ensure that that to some extent is put right.

Mr. Skinner: Vested interests is a serious matter. The hon. Gentleman has said that about 6,000 have signed in favour of the project. My experience is that, when markets have been proposed—in all parts of the country really—there have been local shopkeepers who have not been very keen on the idea. I know that in Derbyshire there have


been several instances where initially—sometimes it has changed—shopkeepers have opposed it. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that none of the local shopkeepers were saying that they were a bit worried about the market? I would be intrigued if there were none. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the position of the local shopkeepers?

Mr. Thorne: As I said before, the chamber of trade and the local shopkeepers have indicated that they are in favour. They find that an open-air market, especially one of modest size, encourages trade because it encourages people to come to the local area. Well run markets are an encouragement. The tatty old markets that one used to find in the past, which were upsetting to local shopkeepers, are now out and we can expect shopkeepers in future to view open-air markets in a different light. I am certainly not saying that every single shopkeeper in Ilford is in favour, but I have not had my attention drawn to any who have indicated dissent, whereas I have had confirmation from the chamber of trade and others that they are very much in favour. After all, it was the chamber of trade that set out to raise the petition, and it has now collected 6,500 signatures. That was its own idea. I believe, therefore, that the whole tempo is changing in that regard. I hope that that will be the case in other parts of the country, too, in future.
Some of the objections from Havering are technical and some financial, based on the idea that the Romford market will he damaged by a market in Ilford. Romford market has provision for 600 spaces and 300 traders work there, with an average of two stalls per trader. That substantial market has been in existence for more than 600 years, so it is well-established.

Mr. Martin Redmond: The hon. Gentlman said that there are 600 pitches at Romford. Why are 300 empty? If there is such a demand for market stalls, one would have thought that market traders would be only too pleased to go to Romford market.

Mr. Thorne: Forgive me, but I obviously did not explain myself well. There is provision for 600 stalls at Romford. There are 300 traders and, on average, they have two stalls each. Some have only one and others have three. The proposal for Ilford is to site the market on an existing car park, with provision for between 50 and 60 stalls, and there would be a new multi-storey car park. We are talking about an entirely different scale, perhaps only I0 per cent. of the spaces available at Romford market.
Any problems should be resolved by an opposed Bill Committee, which is the correct place to argue these matters. I suggest that the Bill should be given the general approval of the House and it would be up to members of the opposed Bill Committee to decide whether the arguments were fair and correct.
As to whatever harm would be done to Romford, the Bill promises compensation for losses to the franchise of Romford's market. That is a generous offer. It is strange that a firm such as Sainsbury's can happily open a store within 6 miles of another major store, such as Tesco, and not have to offer compensation, whereas Redbridge is offering compensation to Romford if loss is proved.
Redbridge has received 250 applications for the 60 possible sites, which shows the ready demand that exists.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman says that compensation has been put on the table, which means that

compensation will be paid if there is a loss of business. Will he elaborate a little? What is the ceiling and for how many years will the offer be on the table?

Mr. Thorne: Any compensation would have to be agreed by valuers. This aspect would have to be considereed by the opposed Bill Committee because it is technical. It would be necessary for the valuers of the two local authorities to get together to decide on a reasonable and satisfactory formula, and it would be wrong for me to pre-empt what they might decide. The timing would be hammered out by the opposed Bill Committee.

Mr. Redmond: I accept that the valuers would toss around ideas on the amount of money that would be lost. Given my experience, I am always a little sceptical about Bills leaving this place and going into Committee if I am not totally convinced about the merits of the arguments.

Mr. Thorne: I shall consider that matter further and, if given the opportunity, try to respond to it later. The technical details would be hammered out in the opposed Bill Committee, but at this stage 1 can say that after six months the valuers would establish whether there had been any major change. That would be a reasonable period in which to see whether there had been an adverse effect. The matter would have to be agreed between the valuers and it would be wrong for me to pre-empt their negotiations.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall raise this matter later if I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to give my hon. Friend the chance to deal with it. Under the Bill a claim must be submitted within three months of the legislation being passed. Is my hon. Friend conceding that the wording is wrong and that the Committee should amend it?

Mr. Thorne: I can confirm that the date is negotiable. I understand that that period has already been proposed by the respective local authorities.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorne: If it has not been formally proposed, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance now.
Redbridge is keen to give its shoppers a complete spectrum of shopping facilities. The shopping system has changed considerably in recent years, let alone over the past 600. We should look towards what is required in today's age. When Romford market was first used, a large part was devoted to cattle and sheep trading. I remember that not so long ago livestock occupied a substantial part of the market, but the market has changed. The places that were occupied by cattle pens are now occupied by smart market stalls. Romford market clearly needed to change, and Redbridge wishes to be able to change as well.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has made some good points about the period during which the market has been in its position. Given that in 1247 the authorities prevented the market from being put in the place where the hon. Gentleman wishes it to go, has he been in touch with the Crown who issued the writ in the first place to ask Her Majesty whether she believes that her subjects should be treated in the same way now? That point should have been pursued before the Bill was considered by the House.

Mr. Thorne: This is the right and proper forum for deciding the future of a market in Redbridge. That is why the London borough of Redbridge has come to the House to seek approval.
It is important in this day and age, when rents and rates for accommodation are ever on the increase, that we should give people the opportunity to start trading and a market stall is an extremely effective and efficient way of doing so. That opportunity should be available throughout the country so that large numbers of people have the opportunity to start a small business. There is no better way of starting a small shop. The examples of this include British Home Stores and Marks and Spencer, and the many other shops that started as market stalls. We should allow that. I certainly hope that the House will agree and, therefore, give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I do not wish to speak at great length. I spoke for two hours 40 minutes on the recent City of London (Various Powers) Bill before I was cut short by a closure. That was the longest speech in the Session so far, and I do not intend to repeat that.

Mr. Skinner: I was present then, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) gave a bravura performance, but there was one weakness. The Secretary of State for the Environment was trying to pinch part of the forest in my hon. Friend's constituency. That was made abundantly clear, but we did not ascertain the amount of land in question. One weakness of my hon. Friend's contribution was that he seemed unable to tell me the kind of trees involved. Could my hon. Friend remedy that today?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will not respond to that intervention. We are concerned only with the market development.

Mr. Cohen: I certainly shall not respond to my hon. Friend's intervention, although trees were involved. In the other debate the Minister for Roads and Traffic suggested that it was scrubland. There are trees all over the place. However, I do not want to go on about trees because we are talking about a market, which is different. In that other debate I was just warming up, but I do not have the opportunity here to get to the substance of what I was on about. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was right: forest land was being stolen from my constituency.
The two Bills share a common feature and it is the reason why I objected to both of them. I looked at all the private Bills at the beginning of this Session and was concerned about a number, but objected to only two because they had local implications. One was the City of London (Various Powers) Bill to steal my forest land, which has still not been given back, and I shall take that further. The M11 link road scheme also worried me. This Bill worries me because Redbridge has had by far the better deal on roads from the Department of Transport than my borough, Waltham Forest. I am talking not merely about building roads, because we could do without that, but how those roads are built and the environmental effects involved.
In the other debate I suggested that there should be a linear park through Leyton which would provide

environmental beauty to the area instead of the environmental monstrosity of the Department of Transport's plan. Redbridge has the money for roads. The Department of Transport has been biased.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the roads that serve Redbridge were financed by the Greater London council, not the Department of Transport?

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes a super point for me to use later. I hate to give away my speech so early, but one of my arguments is that there should be a strategic planning authority for London, just like the GLC. Clearly, as he has praised the GLC, the hon. Gentleman will come to my support when I make that point. He is obviously saying that the GLC helped with roads in his area, and I am pleased. It also helped in my area, and it was only under the Department of Transport that we had such a rotten deal from the Minister for Roads and Traffic, the husband of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
It is ironic that we have had such a rotten deal on the environment. I have a lot of time for the Under-Secretary. Will she kick her husband in bed one evening and say, "I'm a Minister for the Environment, you are the Minister for Roads, will you give Leyton a bit of a good environment?" I know that a Minister's life is a hard life.

Mr. Skinner: I am not having that.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister for Roads and Transport said that he had visited my area and did not understand the questions asked of him on that visit.

Mr. Skinner: He has a chauffeur-driven car.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will come to the question of the market. I should like to hear what he has to say about the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: This is fundamental to the point that I want to make. Redbridge has received money for roads and has had a better deal from the Department of Transport than has Leyton and Waltham Forest. When the market is built, it will be served by roads; a number of roads are already in place. The source of my objection and deep concern was that the money would go to Redbridge. Perhaps it would not do so immediately because some roads are there already, but, in future, Redbridge might get the roads money that should go to Leyton for a better environment along the M11 link road, which is being used to steal our forest.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill has one objective only—the establishment of a market. It has nothing to do with roads leading from Leyton.

Mr. Cohen: I absolutely agree that it deals with the establishment of a market, but people have to get to a market to shop.

Mr. Skinner: The nub of the matter is that there will have to be roads. The point was well put by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who said that there used to be a cattle market. Obviously, people then travelled over lanes and fields, but we are not living in that age now and we are talking about markets served by roads. We cannot discuss this properly without considering the


general environmental background, which means the infrastructure, roads and everything else, and that could affect my hon. Friend's constituency. All these roads lead to Leyton.

Mr. Cohen: The problem is that the roads lead to Leyton, but when they reach it they do not find the good environment or the greenness that goes with it. Therefore, the Leyton people suffer.
The source of my concern was that the road network around the market for Ilford would be improved and Redbridge would get the money again. That is serious because it has political implications. Certainly, in my area there is a feeling that, when it comes to environmental improvements, Conservative boroughs get the money from the Conservative Government We have only to look at the Channel tunnel to see that Conservative areas have a special deal, while Labour areas are left to rot by the Tory Government. That is political bias, and it is not the way in which markets and the roads around them should be planned.

Mr. Redmond: Strategic planning is, I believe, an important element of how the proposed market fits into the overall picture. Perhaps there should be an authority to look at London as a whole. I remember my hon. Friend speaking one evening in the Chamber about the proposal to move Spitalfields market: he was worried about the loss of character that the move would entail. Markets cannot retain the character that they have possessed for many years if they are moved from one place to another. I do not know London as well as my hon. Friend, but I feel that we should examine the sites of such markets throughout the city.
Let me echo my hon. Friend's remarks to the Minister. Last time we discussed a private Bill we faced someone far less attractive, and it is well worth our while to be here this evening.

Mr. Cohen: I shall not go into the Spitalfields issue tonight, as I have already made my views clear. My hon. Friend is, however, right to say that a strategic planning authority for London is needed to consider the implications of the building of markets and the roads around them. Parliament has not the necessary localised knowledge. This is not Parliament's job; we have plenty of other serious issues to address. Today we have heard statements on China and on the NATO conference, but we should have debated those issues. Those are the real issues for the Parliament of today, rather than the question of some regional market—although it may be important to local people. The market seems to be the cause of an internecine battle between the authorities of Redbridge and Romford which should be sorted out at local level by a strategic planning authority like the old GLC.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: I believe that I am the only Member present this evening who was also present for the entire two hours and 40 minutes of the hon. Gentleman's speech on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill. If he really feels that we should not be debating this matter, the solution lies in his hands. I wonder whether his speech this evening will last as long.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the political bias that might be evident. Will he confirm that Labour-controlled Waltham Forest district council has no objection to the Bill?

Mr. Cohen: That was one of the things that put my back up. I objected to the Bill because of the road implications to which I have referred. Like any hon. Member who objects to legislation on such grounds, not knowing all the implications for my constituency—shopping implications, for instance—I expected the promoters to discuss them with me at an early stage. I see that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is getting het up. Let me be fair: he arranged for the chief executive and the borough solicitor to come and discuss the matter with me last week. It was very late in the day, but I was grateful. Part of the purpose of my speech is to put on record some of the assurances that they gave about the roads not affecting Leyton adversely—or so they claimed.
For months on end, not a word came from the Bill's promoters in response to my legitimate concern expressed in the form of an objection. Then I received a letter of literally three lines from the agent for the borough council, which said, "Why are you objecting? Your council does not object." The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) made the same point. I was deeply insulted. I sent back a very curt postcard saying, "My council does not always speak for Leyton. Members of Parliament have the right to speak for their areas as well." It was rude of the agent not even to bother to find out why I was concerned about the Bill.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other point, I certainly do not intend to speak for two hours and 40 minutes this evening. Nevertheless, I have important and legitimate points to make. Leyton, after all, is a neighbour of Redbridge. We have a football team called Leytonstone and Ilford: it used to be called Leytonstone before it merged with Ilford. I fear that you are a little anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, but one of the team's problems is that it now has no ground and has been thrown out of the league.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we get back to markets rather than discussing football teams?

Mr. Cohen: Perhaps the team could play on the ground where the market would be.

Mr. Eric Illsley: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. Would the market be held on football match days? That could complicate matters. I hope that my hon. Friend can also tell us whether the recently promoted Leyton Orient could play in the same area.

Mr. Cohen: Leyton Orient play in Brisbane road, Leyton. At the weekend I saw them play magnificently and win promotion to the third division. I should like to place on record my congratulations—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying a long way from the subject. I am sure that he is competent enough to return to the subject of the market at Redbridge.

Mr. Cohen: I mentioned Leytonstone and Ilford merely to show the local connection. The two areas are close enough for the football team to cover both of them.
A London strategic planning authority would resolve conflicts between areas such as Ilford and Redbridge, and dealing with the question of markets would be one of its functions. I am not a great supporter of ancient charters being cast in iron for ever, such as the one that states that no market should be set up within 6¾ miles of another, which was drawn up by Henry III. I think it daft, however, that we have to depend on Parliament for such a provision to be waived. Parliament's time should not be wasted; such disputes should be sorted out by a strategic planning authority.

Mr. Bendall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even in the days of the GLC a Bill would have been needed?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, but the conflict would have been sorted out long before now. Because the GLC would have performed that function, we might well have been in a position to scrap the private Bill procedure in such cases and thus save hon. Members' time. Getting rid of that ancient charter could set a precedent in other areas where authorities want to build markets to which the charter would apply. We could be flooded with private Bills aimed at getting round the procedure. There could be an element of corruption. The market is financed by the Prudential and by Norwich Union to the extent of hundreds of millions of pounds. With the involvement of big business in such markets there is scope for corruption through bribing right hon. and hon. Members to push through private Bills, while that procedure operates.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understand legislation, compensation will be paid for Romford market as a result of the new market at Redbridge. However, markets compete not only with each other but with shopkeepers. Surely there should be a balance between compensation paid to other markets and to shopkeepers who will lose out by the development of Redbridge market, because shopkeepers pay rates whereas stallholders do not. The private Bill procedure is inappropriate when the matter should form part of strategic shopping plan for the whole of London. The lack of such a plan will cause chaos, with many different shopping centres competing with one another and with resources not being properly used.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. A strategic authority would devise such a plan. My hon. Friend is also right about small shopkeepers losing out and not receiving compensation. If they want to make representations under the private Bill procedure, they must incur enormous expense. They may feel that the matter is cut and dried anyway, so there is little point. However, they would have incurred no expense in contacting their GLC councillor or a strategic authority for shops policy.
Under the expensive private Bill procedure, the democratic right to object is being placed beyond the bounds of people who have genuine cause for complaint, and who might receive compensation if they did. Perhaps one should not compare that situation with the recent events in China, which are of course horrendous, but in China too there is a struggle for democracy. The small shopkeepers are crushed not by tanks, thank goodness, but by the expensive and stupid private Bill procedure. It is in that way that their democratic rights are crushed.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend makes an important point about strategic planning and says that we should not hang around here talking about a matter that concerns his constituency and that it should be dealt with by a body such as the old Greater London council. I envisage that under a strategic authority there could be different types of market for different types of area. There could be a flea market in Finchley, a dead sheep market in the Foreign Secretary's constituency, and puppet markets in the constituency of every Cabinet Minister.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Meanwhile, the debate should return to the subject of the market in Redbridge.

Mr Cohen: I recall my hon. Friend's remarkable comments about the Prime Minister cutting jelly babies in half to ensure that customers did not get any extra weight. There have been cuts ever since, but fewer cuts in Tory Redbridge than in Leyton, which has greater need for extra resources, including markets. Again we see the party political bias to which I referred earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) made a good point concerning Spitalfields market. The local communities make it possible for markets to make big profits. My hon. Friend rightly said that some of those profits should be returned to those local communities. Under the private Bill procedure, that cannot happen. Local communities are being robbed of enjoying an element of the profits that markets make.
The strategic authority, as well as devising better policies for shopping centres and for markets, could devise better policies for roads. Leyton would have had a much better deal over the M11 link road had a strategic authority been involved rather than the Department of Transport. My major concern is that the roads money from that Department will be soaked up in Redbridge market rather than go to Leyton to offset the effects of the road that the Department is blasting through the area.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As to planning access to markets, one of the problems confronting many local authorities, and one that the Bill may not take into account, is that the European Community is trying to force through, with the agreement of the Minister for Roads and Traffic, 40-tonne lorries instead of the present maximum of 38 tonnes. Clearly, any local authority must consider that serious departure from existing regulations before presenting any Bill to the House in which road access is a factor.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will not wish to respond to a matter that is not within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: That is perfectly true, Madam Deputy Speaker, except that road access is relevant to many markets. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is horrendous that the Government have again given in to the Common Market and to big business interests. If Redbridge market develops and grows bigger, it may have to be served by larger lorries. In those circumstances, the road network serving the market may not be suitable. Redbridge will then tell the Department of Transport, "Give us the money. The heavy lorries have destroyed the roads around here. We have a market here and we deserve that money." Again, that will put the kibosh on Leyton and on extra money to counter the adverse environmental effects of the new link road. Leyton has already been robbed of its


forests by the Government and of money to improve the environment. Now we shall get stuffed up again by 40-tonne lorries because money for new roads will be given only to Redbridge.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend say what consultations there have been between the boroughs involved and the police authorities about policing the market? In some areas .a substantial volume of goods shoplifted from ordinary shops ends up on market stalls.

Mr. Cohen: I have not received any specific information from the supporters of the Bill, but my hon. Friend makes a fair point and perhaps the Bill's sponsor will be able to answer it. I do not really like the black economy in which street markets operate, but if they can get goods off the back of a lorry, to use the colloquial term, that probably has a beneficial effect because good quality goods can be sold cheap to people who are being hammered by Government policies, by high inflation, and by unemployment. Therefore, I can sympathise with that aspect of the black economy. I detest the other side of the black economy whereby the rich find all the loopholes and rake in millions of pounds.
I am not particularly worried about the black economy. One can get a blooming good bargain in some of the markets in east London. I recommend that my hon. Friend goes down there and gets a few bargains. The other day I came to the House in a suit that cost me only a fiver. It is a wonderful fit. Brick lane market is superb for second-hand clothes.

Mr. Cryer: The next time my hon. Friend buys a suit, will he make sure that it is made in the United Kingdom and that the wool comes from Bradford?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the local markets sell suits made with wool from Bradford. The suit that I bought in Brick lane market for a fiver is a thorn-proof suit. Believe it or not, I saw a Government Minister on "Wogan" and as he sat down he flashed the label of his thorn-proof suit, so I did not know whether my suit once belonged to a Government Minister, but working-class people can get access to thorn-proof suits via markets and the black economy.
My key point concerns the road network. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Ilford, South set up a meeting last week with Mr. Price, the chief executive, and Mr. Bassett, the director of administration and legal services. They were most helpful. They gave me a verbal assurance that no new roads or road improvements are planned.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend should have got it in writing.

Mr. Cohen: I need to be absolutely convinced about that and I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will refer to it. If at any time, even under a Labour Government, Redbridge tried to fool a Labour Government by saying that it had a market and needed money for its roads, it should be on record that the borough has stated that it does not need the money and has not planned any expansion in the road network and that it should not be given priority. Leyton should get priority as the Government have stolen our forest and we have had the worst possible deal from the M11 link road with very poor environmental effect.

Mr. George J. Buckley: My hon. Friend stressed the necessity of increasing road services to the proposed market. I am not sufficiently local to know whether he is justified in making that point, but if more expenditure is necessary to improve the road services to the site of the market that would generate the need for more car parking to accommodate the increased traffic that will be generated by the establishment of the market. Is my hon. Friend convinced that there is adequate car parking in the locality to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic?

Mr. Cohen: I am not totally convinced that there will be sufficient car parking space as that will depend on the size of the market. Mr. Price was kind enough to give me a leaflet on Redbridge that refers to the market for Ilford and the Bill. The leaflet states:
And work has started on a new shopping mall to provide some 100 shops, department store, food court and parking for 1,200 cars. This is due to open in 1991.
I do not know whether 1,200 car parking spaces will be sufficient, but clearly Redbridge has thought about it. The leaflet also talks about the road network and stales that:
the A406—South Woodford to Barking Relief Road—opened in 1987.
So Redbridge already has those flash new roads. That emphasises my point that the money has already gone to Redbridge at the expense of Leyton and it would be quite horrendous if it received any more money.
I want to place it clearly on record that if Redbridge gets the market it should not get any more money for roads and that Leyton should be the first priority ahead of Redbridge. That point has to be rammed in, and that is why I object to the Bill.

Mr. Redmond: I do not know whether my hon. Friend had a meeting at the proposed site with the people whom he mentioned. He spoke about the verbal promise that he received. I would be slightly sceptical about accepting such a promise, as we do not know what the future will hold, especially if the market can expand. I am not quite sure where the site is, but perhaps my hon. Friend can inform me whether future expansion could take place by knocking down a few buildings. There is certainly some demolition taking place at Spitalfields market. The Bill talks about 60 or 80 sites, and I am not sure whether that could be increased to 100, 200 or 300. If the market expands, money will be required to ensure that local services meet the increased capacity. However, I do not know the area and would be grateful if my hon. Friend could help.

Mr. Cohen: There is always a danger of expansion. The Bill deals with the market stalls and, as far as I can see, the site appears to be quite limited. However, the enclosed mall and the food court to which I referred could spread and the parking problem could increase as could the pressure for roads to service the area.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that assurances are given by all sorts of people at various times as a matter of convenience to them? One certain way in which those assurances can be made hard and fast is by incorporating a clause or an amendment in the Bill. I wonder whether the chief executive would be prepared to say that he would incorporate into the Bill an amendment to make it a cast-iron guarantee which could be changed only by the Bill being amended in Parliament?

Mr. Cohen: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. I am always grateful to hon. Members with much greater experience of such procedures, and the private Bill procedure is certainly archaic. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion; I had not thought of it. I would welcome a clause in the Bill making it clear that the priority for roads money should go not to Redbridge but to Leyton. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill, or even the Minister, will agree to such an amendment because Leyton certainly has had a bad deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that I should have got a written assurance from the chief executive about no new roads being needed. Mr. Price came to see me only at the end of last week so there has not been an opportunity for that. Mr. Price has served the London borough of Redbridge for a long time and I take him at his word, and he gave me that assurance and I have put it on record tonight. Mr. Price speaks not for himself but for Redbridge and its honour would also be at stake.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an abuse of the private Bill procedure for the promoters not to explore every opportunity to negotiate with anyone who has his name down in a block and to give assurances so that there is no need for a debate in the House? Hon. Members would prefer to debate some of the momentous events happening throughout the world rather than give time to private Bills. The tradition in the House is that, wherever possible, the promoters negotiate to avoid the need for a Second Reading debate, which again takes up hon. Members' time, and the possibility of amendments being moved on Third Reading.

Mr. Cohen: I made my objections to the Bill clear at the beginning of the Session, but I do not oppose it as strongly as I opposed the City of London (Various Powers) Bill whereby forest land was stolen and not replaced. I could have gone on all night protesting about that. I am concerned about how the road network will affect Leyton.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes people of integrity give assurances but that one chief executive can be replaced by another? The only way in which an assurance given in perfect faith and utmost honesty will stand the test of time is for it to be written on the face of the Bill. A new chief executive could legitimately say, "Nothing said by a previous office holder can bind me." The promoters should redraw the Bill so that an assurance can appear on the face of it.

Mr. Cohen: I hope that the promoters will take my hon. Friend's point on board. Given the limited time that was available, I could only assume that the chief executive was a man of honour and that he spoke for Redbridge. My only purpose in speaking is to place on record the fact that the chief executive gave me a cast-iron assurance.
Any money for roads should not be given to build a market. There are already prior claims on that money in Leyton, which has been done down by the Government, especially by the husband of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. She should be concerned about the environment and should kick him out of bed one evening and say "Leyton should be given the money ahead of Redbridge."

Mr. Redmond: I am a little concerned about the faith that my hon. Friend is placing in the word of the chief

executive, who no doubt is an honourable man whose word is his bond. However, chief executives come and go. In a short period, Doncaster has had two chief executives. A new chief executive may argue, "My predecessor should have said this or that." Hon. Members have experience of officers saying things that bind the passage of a Bill. An authority should include in the Bill any undertaking that it gives to an hon. Member.

Mr. Cohen: I bow to my hon. Friend's experience. Under the appalling private Bill procedure, I was consulted very late, but I look to the promoters to include on Third Reading the assurance that was given to me.

Mr. Skinner: That is a bit late.

Mr. Cohen: I know that it is a bit late, but that may be a solution if Redbridge does not want to go to the expense of withdrawing the Bill. I am clearly not in a position to table such a clause.

Mr. Cryer: Redrafting this part of the Bill would be the best way to proceed. It occurred to me while my hon. Friend was making his useful comments that under local government reorganisation—which can occur at any time under this Government, who are reorganising everything in sight to make it more difficult for ordinary people—if something is included in the Bill, which then becomes an Act, any successor organisation is obliged to take over the responsibility of the previous local government authority. An assurance from a chief executive of an authority that has disappeared or merged into another local authority is worthless, no matter how decent or honest the man or woman was who gave it. I urge my hon. Friend to consider the possibility of redrafting this part of the Bill to incorporate the assurance that he was given, because that is the only way it will stand the test of time.

Mr. Cohen: I take my hon. Friend's point, which has thrown me into a dilemma. I was given an assurance in good faith and I am prepared to believe it. Mr. Price is clearly an honourable man, and I merely wanted to get the assurance on the record.

Mr. Illsley: I should like my hon. Friend to bear in mind the example about which Labour Members have been speaking. In 1986, the Government abolished South Yorkshire county council, and any assurances given by it were made worthless. Local authority powers devolved to the district authorities of Doncaster, Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley. If that were to happen in London, the district authority might disagree with the policy of the previous authority, thereby scuppering any assurance given to my hon. Friend. Parliament is being asked to approve a Bill to give power to a local authority, but it should incorporate concrete assurances in the Bill.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has added to my concern. He has experience of assurances becoming worthless.
While my hon. Friend was speaking, I thought of a way round the problem. It would be best if the Minister said, "I am pleased to say to the hon. Member for Leyton that the Government can get round the problem and Parliament can get on and discuss the important issues of the day. We shall give Leyton all the money that it needs for its roads and environment as a result of the M 11 link road to prevent any squabbling." After all, we need to improve the environment on that link road. Leyton needs more parks, forests and open space. The Department of


Transport sold some that we had. Many people along that route are about to be made homeless and they deserve to be treated well by the Government.
The way out of the problem would be for Conservatives to help each other. The Government can help Redbridge to get the Bill through without incorporating a new clause if they put up the money for Leyton.

Mr. Skinner: I am a bit worried now. My hon. Friend has been making the point at length that he is a bit worried about undertakings given in a short meeting that he had last week, telling us, I think, that he had serious reservations about the market proposed in the Bill. Is my hon. Friend now saying that if he can get for Leyton what he did not get on the City of London (Various Powers) Bill he is prepared to have another look at the matter? I hope that he will clear up that important matter.

Mr. Cohen: I would not have objected to the Bill if I had thought that Leyton would not he adversely affected. If the money is put up for Leyton's roads and environment, I have no objection if, in a few years' time, a bit more money goes to Redbridge's roads. We shall have had ours in Leyton. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that point.

Mr. Skinner: It sounds mercenary to me.

Mr. Cohen: I can be a hit mercenary when I am fighting for my constituents, especially when they are being done down day after day by the Government. They have to rely on their markets to buy suits for £5, cheap food and towels from the Londonderry hotel. There are towels from the Londonderry hotel in markets throughout Britain and no doubt they will be found in this market.

Mr. Cryer: Many Opposition Members feel that the Government have abused the private Bill procedure by putting forward what is essentially Government legislation in the form of private Bills. For the Minister to intervene and say that a grant will be made to my hon. Friend's constituency, as my hon. Friend is suggesting, would be a further abuse of the private Bill procedure. I hope that my hon. Friend will re-examine the position. The best way to proceed would be to incorporate in the Bill the sort of assurance that he has sought and obtained from the chief executive rather than to rely on the Government intervening with offers of money. As my hon. Friend knows, Goverment money can carry many conditions and difficulties and he might find himself wishing that the Bill had been altered instead.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is doing a good job in persuading me, but I would take the money for my constituents. If the Minister said that we could have the money for parks and open spaces and for the families who would be made homeless, I would take it, even though my hon. Friend makes excellent constitutional points. The private Bill procedure is bankrupt anyway, and community profits do not go to the community, so I would take the money.

Mr. Skinner: Even if it was in ecus?

Mr. Cohen: Yes, because we have an excellent Member of the European Parliament, Alf Lomas, who might well be able to get them changed on his trips to the Common Market. He does great work in the local area. However, I shall not go further along that route.
I said that I would not speak for long, and I want to start to conclude.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Before the hon. Gentleman does so, I may be able to assist him on the procedure that we shall be going through later. I fear that my hon. Friend the Minister is unlikely to give the hon. Gentleman the money that he wants and there is a faint possibility that when we divide later we may fail to throw the Bill out at this stage, regrettable though that will be. However, the private Bill procedure allows Leyton to make representations to the private Bill Committee, when the point that the hon. Gentleman has made so forcefully could be put. At that stage, four of our colleagues will have the right to write that condition into the Bill. Should they do so, Redbridge council will be bound by it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should consider inviting his local authority to make representations to the Committee should it be necessary.

Mr. Cohen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful advice. I shall take it on board and ask my local authority to make those representations. Nevertheless, the Minister should put up the money for Leyton, because it is such a good cause and has been done down so often, and it would ease the Bill's passage.
Another area of concern was that when the M11 link road goes through Leytonstone high road should have the opportunity to be pedestrianised. The Bill relates to part of Redbridge being pedestrianised. Again, Redbridge is getting that first, or rather being the only one to get it, taking priority over Leyton which really needs it.
When the M11 goes through, Leytonstone high road could be pedestrianised, enhancing Leytonstone's shopping opportunities. We do not want Redbridge to have built up its market to such an extent that it stifles Leytonstone at birth and ruins its opportunities for pedestrianisation and the environmental improvements that would flow from that.
Mr. Price and Mr. Bassett of Redbridge referred to the theory of concentric shopping circles. I do not know whether my hon. Friends know about that. Basically, it boils down to some planner drawing a circle around one market and then around another further down the road. Anyone who lives in between the two circles or in the area where the circles overlap might go to either market—

Mr. Skinner: They would get dizzy.

Mr. Cohen: They would spend double the money.
I am not an expert on that new-fangled theory, but I should like Leytonstone to have its shopping facilities improved and to be pedestrianised so that we can draw a nice big circle around Leytonstone and improve the prosperity of my constituency. I would be worried if Redbridge took away that opportunity and ruined Leytonstone's prospects.

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend refers to the theory of concentric circles which involves a circle being drawn around one market and then another, leaving an area in between. Does not the royal charter put a protective circle around the market to prevent another market from being placed there? Therefore, is not the concentric circle argument a little confusing?

Mr. Cohen: I recall Mr. Price and Mr. Bassett saying that communications had improved dramatically since the time of Henry III, when the distance to a market was


thought to involve a third of the day getting there, a third of the day shopping and a third of the day getting home, and I suppose that that comes into the 6¾ mile measurement.
We do not want markets springing up in close proximity to each other, with authorities competing unnecessarily and wastefully. The result will be markets going broke. We have seen that happen in other spheres, where local authorities have spent loads of money on advertising simply to compete with each other.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am intrigued by the concentric circle argument. Did Mr. Price tell the hon. Gentleman what he thought about the idea of having concentric circles within one circle? It is proposed that the Ilford circle should occur within the Romford circle. That does not seem to make economic sense.

Mr. Cohen: I agree, and it cannot make sense to have the concentric circles on top of each other. That brings me back to the need for a strategic planning authority, and it brings me to my final point, which is to oppose the idea of having markets virtually on top of each other. In that situation more markets will spring up and they will all go broke.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the original example, dating from 1247, provides an argument for having proper strategic planning? Will my hon. Friend develop the concept of strategic planning, which is essential if we are to make the best use of resources?

Mr. Cohen: I do not want to delay the House by going down that path, remembering that I have been careful strictly to address the issues concerning the market. My hon. Friend makes an important point about strategic planning because it must make sense to optimise resources, otherwise waste results. We do not want many markets in certain areas and none in rural and semi-rural areas, with those living in distant areas having to travel for miles to get their Londonderry hotel towels.

Mr. Barron: If my hon. Friend agrees that the 13th century example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) represented one of the earliest forms of strategic planning, may I ask him to develop the point that it represented wide-ranging foresight on the part of those concerned in relation to housing?

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right, and the point he makes proves how important it is to have strategic planning in London and elsewhere, including Bradford. Any plan involving shopping areas must have housing in mind. Indeed, transport—not forgetting public transport—roads and all other forms of planning must be taken into account at the same time.
The trouble with the policies of the Government, including their use of the private Bill procedure, is that all of those considerations are the subject of chaos. They are left to market forces. They plan nothing in a co-ordinated way, and that leads to enormous waste.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend might care to reflect on the way in which some authorities will spend large sums of money establishing markets, with good facilities and so on, while others will spend less. If this is left to market forces,

some local authorities will find that their markets become less successful as competitor markets become more profitable. Ratepayers' money will have been spent on facilities, for stallholders and the public, which serve no useful purpose. Indeed, councillors might face being surcharged because of that waste of ratepayers' money.

Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes the point so well that I need not enlarge on it, except to remind the House that part of that expenditure will be on advertising. Once markets are so close—such as Romford and Ilford—that competition is enormous, but local authorities will spend ratepayers' money on advertising, competing against each other, in a chaotic way. The money will, no doubt, go to Saatchi and Saatchi, who will laugh all the way to the bank—

Mr. Barron: And from Saatchi and Saatchi to the Conservative party.

Mr. Cohen: —yes, and on to Tory party funds. That money could have been spent on housing.

Mr. Illsley: I will not delay my hon. Friend because a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I hope to have an opportunity later to comment on the royal charter that was awarded to my constituency. The document to which my hon. Friend referred showed that Ilford town centre will have a new shopping mall in addition to a new market. He pointed out that ratepayers' money will be spent on advertising if the market becomes run down.
In my constituency, part of a market was moved to become part of a market complex and shopping centre. The result was that the market competed with the shopping precinct, and the profits of both declined. Eventually the local authority was involved in heavy expense to improve the shopping mall and the market centre simply to re-establish the position that existed prior to the amalgamation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the case we are discussing, competition between the market and the shopping complex will lead the authorities into incurring considerable expense?

Mr. Cohen: That is another example of an intervention making the point. I need not add to what my hon. Friend said. It is another reason for having a strategic planning authority.
I shall resume my seat, having spoken about the road network and the need for the money about which we are speaking not to be spent on a market but to come to Leyton for the benefit of the people of the area.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the roads of Leyton. I am grateful for the modest and short intervention that he made in the debate, in which he concisely made important points in favour of his constituency. I have no doubt that those matters will be pursued further if the Bill proceeds to another stage.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for a long time. We have served together on various Select Committees on Defence, and it is sad for me to be against him on this measure. He will forgive me for not being able to vote with him, in the light of the appalling shortcomings of the Bill which he has had


the misfortune to present to the House. I say that because the measure is full of flaws in terms of detail and construction.
On the face of it, it is a simple little Bill which appears to be harmless in asking for a market in Ilford. That would be the case if it were something that was taken in a vacuum, but in order to judge the merits of this Bill we have to do two things. First, we have to recognise the background against which it is being brought forward. The Romford market has been operating for something like 742 years and this Bill is in direct abrogation of the rights which the Romford market traders have enjoyed for the whole of that period. Secondly, we have to look at the detail of the Bill to see if in its construction it is a fair Bill and puts its case across adequately.
The key to that can be found in paragraph (2) on page 1, which reads:
It would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a further market in the part of the borough known as Ilford notwithstanding the infringement or non-compliance thereby with any rule of law or enactment".
It cannot be very often that a Bill comes before the House announcing at the outset that it intends to flout existing laws and go against existing enactments to the detriment of people other than those for whom the Bill is being promoted. I therefore, to a degree, commend the honesty of the Bill in admitting at the outset that that is its purpose.
Not content with doing that, the Bill is even more explicit in clause 3, which sets out what the Bill is attempting to achieve. It reads:
The Council may—

(1) establish a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall; and
(2) authorise, on such terms (whether financial or otherwise) as they think fit the establishment by others of a market within a distance of one mile from the town hall;".

So immediately we have a difference between what the Bill is seeking to achieve and that which perhaps its promoters would imagine people to perceive. They are not asking for one market in Ilford; they are asking for the right to set up two markets in competition with the one which exists in Romford.
The Bill goes on in that same clause to say:
notwithstanding that the holding of such a market would interfere with any rights, powers or privileges enjoyed in respect of a market held by any other person.
That really is extraordinary and it is even more extraordinary because one has to take into account that it is couched in terms which beg the question whether it would interfere with any such rights. And the fact is that it demonstrably and on the face of the Bill is in direct conflict with such rights. I will come back to that point when I examine the terms of the Bill a little more closely.
I would like to take the House through the remaining clauses so that we have a complete picture of what is being put forward tonight.

Mr. Barron: Subsection (2) of clause 3 in fact says that it is asking for the right not to set up other markets owned by a London borough council but to set up markets owned by other people, who normally, as I understand the private Bill procedure, would have to do exactly what this council is doing at the present time—that is, make direct representations to set up a market within the area.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I bow to his great knowledge of the private Bill procedure. It is extraordinary that the Redbridge

borough council should be trying to take upon itself the right to make such appointments not merely to itself, but to others, for their own financial gain, which would normally not be feasible without coming back to the House.

Mr. Barron: Not only that, but they are doing exactly as the hon. Member says without anybody having to come back to the House in future in terms of further developments in that area. It is the House that is losing out and not just the borough council.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is quite right and it is a very important point. The House has to be very careful when allowing powers to be taken from it and delegated to others. I do not believe in delegating such powers without keeping a residual authority within the House to look at again and amend whatever we may see being done under the provisions that we have approved. In this instance we would not have any further power as the House of Commons to take another look at a Redbridge market being set up by that council in a way of which we might thoroughly disapprove, nor would we have any say in who was adminstering such a market.
Clause 4 deals with compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has been good enough to admit that this clause is inadequate. None the less, it would be doing the problems less than justice if the House did not look closely at what is proposed. We are not looking here at a draft, a Green Paper, something that has been put to the House for consideration in outline; we are looking at detailed proposals that are being put forward with the recommendation that they should pass into law.
If we pass this now, on Second Reading, we shall have no further powers under the private Bill procedure, unless amendments are made in the private Bill Committee, to look at this again on Report. That is something which is unique to the private Bill procedure, which makes it all the more important that matters are not lightly glossed over. Notwithstanding the undertaking that my hon. Friend has given that this can be looked at later, it may well be that it will not be and that we shall not be able to find an acceptable compromise solution later. There is a danger that if we failed to find such a solution by compromise or by procedures within the private Bill Committee this House, constituted as it is tonight, would not have a further chance of looking at the Bill.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Member makes a very good point. He will know that a private Bill is going through Parliament at the present time which has not just local but national importance because of this very point. The Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill came back to the House unamended and dozens of hon. Members were very concerned indeed about its implications, yet we do not have the right to amend that Bill.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I restrict my remarks to what we are considering tonight. Certainly in regard to this Bill there is a danger that this could happen and that gives me grounds for concern.
Under clause 4 it is proposed that:
If by virtue of the enactment of this Act, the value of the right conferred by statute or by Royal Charter to hold an existing market is diminished, the person in whom that right is vested shall be entitled to compensation from the Council as set out in subsection (2) below or as otherwise agreed with


the Council save that a local authority within the meaning of section 72 of the Act of 1984 shall not be entitled to any compensation in respect of any rights, powers or privileges which they enjoy by reason only of the fact that they have established a market within their own district in the circumstances set out in subsection (3) of section 50 of the Act of 1984.
That is deeply significant in the context of this discussion because, as I will explain a little later, that clause does not cover the circumstances in which Romford market operates. Therefore it does not offer compensation to Romford borough council under its present terms.

Mr. Redmond: What has been said about the Bill being unamended in Committee is very important. The clause to which the hon. Member has referred talks about the local authority within the meaning of section 72 of the 1984 Act. I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that local government is going through tremendous changes and I do not see that stopping within the next couple of years. So any Acts affecting local government can be deleted, amended or whatever, and this will have a direct impact on what is stated in this section.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to be concerned about that. There are procedures whereby such new Bills try to amend or take into account existing legislation to which they refer. One of my more arduous and less enjoyable jobs in the House is to serve on the Committee considering the consolidation of Bills. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that involves looking very closely at new Bills which take into account old legislation and consolidate it. We have to be extremely careful that when that is done no change of law takes place inadvertently through the new wording.
There are procedures whereby the danger that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) fears can be averted, but it is a danger that needs to be watched for whenever new legislation is brought forward. The meaning of "the Council" under section 72 of the Food Act 1984, which I confess that I have not read, may or may not be too narrow in terms of those who have the powers to hold local markets. That is another matter to which we should turn our attention if further opportunity arises.
Subsections 4(2) and 4(3) deal with the measure of compensation. Again, I ask the House to pay attention to this because I have strong objections to it. They say:

"(a) The measure of compensation shall be the capitalised value of the estimated loss of income to the claimant from persons trading at his market resulting from the continuance or establishment of a market under this Act.
(b) Compensation under this section shall carry interest from the expiry of six weeks from the date on which the claim is received by the Council.

3. Except as otherwise be agreed by the Council, compensation under this section shall not be payable except upon a claim made in writing to the Council within three months of the commencement of this Act.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has admitted that that is an appallingly inadequate time in which compensation can be assessed, but I ask the House to consider how anybody could bring such a proposal before the House in the first place. It shows an appalling lack of regard for those who trade in Romford market and an almost arrogant disregard for the need to give adequate compensation when old, established rights are being taken away. That is certainly not in line with

anything that this Government would like to see done. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to distance herself from any such proposal, if she wishes to say anything about it now.
The timing of such compensation must be flexible and should be taken from a date at which such damage could conceivably be assessed. To say that the damage can be assessed within three months of the Act being passed, which will be before Redbridge market starts trading anyway, is ludicrous. Even supposing that Redbridge market can manage to start trading in that period, it will take a year or two before the impact of that market is fully felt at Romford. What will my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South say later to that, if he has the opportunity, as I hope that he will? What proposal will he be able to make that will adequately cover the point of giving properly assessed compensation at the right time to the council?
It is not, of course, only the council, or primarily the council in many instances, which will be the loser. The losers will be the 300-odd traders who have their market stalls in Romford. They have been established there for a long time and the Bill contains no proposal that compensation should be payable to them.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman has made the case that I was going to put. It is highly questionable whether the issue of compensation resulting from new retail outlets can be assessed at all, whether it involves a new market or a new shopping mall, which I understand that the town of Ilford will have in the next few years. The whole concept of compensation for the loss of retail trading is not well planned. There have been no major legal judgments on which an assessment could be based. Clause 4 is perhaps a sop, as is the proposal about compensation claims having to be made within three months. That is especially the case under the private Bill procedure. This Bill could go into Committee and two hon. Members could send it back unamended. It would then have to go through with the major defects that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is wholly correct. The Bill could go through with those defects and it would be appalling and unjust if it were to do so. Even if the Bill is amended, it is difficult, I agree, to assess compensation for the loss of retail trade. I am not aware of any great precedents for that, certainly not in the big world outside market trading. There is no previous history of such compensation within market trading because no previous Act has gone against existing rights under part III of the 1984 Act, or any similar rights before that. I may be wrong about that, but, to my knowledge, this matter has not arisen before. Clause 4 is an odd and inadequate clause. As presently drafted, it gives no compensation either to Romford council or to the traders who will lose out and it is, therefore, in the context of the Bill, wholly irrelevant and can be seen only as a red herring.
When I intervened earlier in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton he said that there had been talk about a compromise on this point. I understand from my local authority that two compromises were offered of which that was one, but that they were offered on wholly unacceptable terms—namely, that the council should undertake not to oppose the Bill on Second Reading. The understanding was that if the Bill was opposed on Second


Reading, the offers of compromise would be withdrawn. Like the hon. Member for Leyton, I am here not as a preacher for my local council, but to represent my constituents. I find it odd, therefore, that Redbridge council should seek to put such terms on any compromise it may seriously have proposed. If it was serious about putting forward a compromise, it should not have been on terms that the local authority should try to gag local members of Parliament and prevent them from properly representing their constituents. That should not be encouraged by this House and should it prove to have been the case we shall have to ensure that it does not happen again. The compensation clause is, therefore, quite irrelevant to the Bill and the House should disregard it when deciding on whether the Bill should go through this stage.
Clause 5 says:
A market established under this Act shall be deemed to have been established by the Council under Section 50 of the Act of 1984.
I want to make a technical point on that. I may be wrong as I am not a draftsman, but it seems to be an appallingly badly drafted Bill. It makes the claim that a market established under it should be established as follows:
50.—(1) The council of a district may—

(a) establish a market within their district;
(b) acquire by agreement (but not otherwise), either by purchase or on lease, the whole or any part of an existing market undertaking within their district, and any rights enjoyed by any person within their district in respect of a market and of tolls,

and, in either case, may provide—

(i) a market place with convenient approaches to it;
(ii) a market house and other buildings convenient for the holding of a market.

(2) A market shall not be established in pursuance of this section so as to interfere with any rights, powers or privileges enjoyed within the district in respect of a market by any person, without that person's consent.
That is what section 50 of the 1984 Act says.
How can the promoters of the Bill purport to set up a market under the terms of that Act when in clause 3 of the Bill and elsewhere they propose precisely to set up a market without the consent of the people whose rights will be thus abrogated? This an appallingly bad clause in an appallingly bad Bill, which should be thrown out at this stage. If Redbridge really wants legislation passed, it should bring back a properly drafted Bill and have proper discussions with other concerned local authorities, rather than attempting to obtain such discussions by means that I would consider to be dubious. We could then re-examine the whole question.
Perhaps I may deal with the locus standi of Romford council, the borough of Havering and the three Members of Parliament who represent the area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, we in Romford have enjoyed our own markets for 742 years, which must make Romford one of the oldest established and most continual trading markets in the country. The market was originally set up under a writ issued by Henry III in 1247, under which he gave the right of a market in the Royal Manor of Havering-atte-Bower, which continues as the Romford market today. That market was the one which meets on Wednesday.
Romford also has the right to hold markets on Fridays and Saturdays. The Saturday market arises from what is called a "lost modern grant". For the benefit of those of my hon. Friends who are not lawyers, and indeed for the benefit of some who are—even as a lawyer, I confess that

I had to ask someone exactly what it meant—a "lost modern grant" is, in fact, a lost old grant. No one knows how the right was acquired because it was acquired so long ago and because it has been enjoyed continuously for so long, but the legal fiction is that at some stage someone granted the right. The "lost modern grant" is the basis on which the market is held. The rights of a market held under lost modern grant are as great as those of a market held under original writ. The Friday market is operated by Havering borough in exercise of its powers under part III of the Food Act 1984—on which Ilford and Redbridge so wrongly attempt to base their market operations.
We in Romford have the right to hold markets on three days of the week. That is significant. It means that we are not talking about taking away the rights of market traders who trade in Romford one day of the week and somewhere else the next. We are talking about taking away the rights to an exclusive area which have been enjoyed for a very long time by about 300 traders trading there three days a week. I suspect that those traders base a large part of their livelihood upon their operations in Romford market. The House must think carefully, therefore, before doing anything to undermine the security of their operations in Romford by passing a Bill in direct contravention of the arrangements that have pertained in our area for so long and in direct contravention of anything that has been done in this line before. I am advised that all other new markets set up under the 1984 Act have scrupulously observed the limits and boundaries of other markets that have been operating in the vicinity. We are not talking about following precedent or doing something that is normal in the course of market trading, negotiation and dialogue. We are talking about doing something that has never been done before. One would certainly not guess that from the way in which the Bill has been presented to the House.
I hope that we shall throw the Bill back where it came from and that, in due course, we shall have a chance to negotiate the position with Redbridge and perhaps find some way in which Romford could properly consent to a change in the present structure. If we do not give that consent—if that consent is not forthcoming for proper reasons—it would be wrong for the House to override the rights of the local borough of Havering in this way.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill should be withdrawn and that the London borough of Redbridge should hold proper discussions. The third paragraph of a letter signed by the chief executive of Redbridge says that major concessions have been discussed between the two local authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any such concessions and, if so, does he know whether his local authority is satisfied with them? The letter seems to suggest that it is.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: One thing that I certainly do know is that my local authority is not satisfied with the Bill as drafted, nor has it agreed any of the compromises that it was invited to agree. As I said earlier, the terms in which that invitation was expressed were wholly and rightly unacceptable to the local authority, and, indeed, undeliverable by it. Whatever the local authority may have said to me, I would in any case have taken whatever view I considered to be right in the interests of my constituents. I know that there were negotiations and that at some stage


the local authority agreed some of the points, but it certainly did not agree to the Bill in its present form or to the compromises mentioned earlier.
I am concerned that the interests of my constituents, the local traders and those who have enjoyed the facilities of Romford market for so long will be gravely endangered if this Bill is allowed to reach the statute book. I hope that when we vote in about an hour's time the House will take the view that the Bill should not be sent upstairs to Committee.
When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton I said that I was afraid that there would not be any acceptable new clauses or amendments during Committee that would allow the Bill to return to the Floor of the House for further discussion on Report. That must be seriously considered because, unlike the usual procedure for Bills, there will be no further opportunity—other than for the four hon. Members who will consider the Bill upstairs in Committee—to consider possible compromises that would enable those of us who represent the interests of Romford—

Mr. Skinner: If Mr. Speaker accepts a closure motion, even though there are still a number of hon. Members wishing to speak, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friends because two of the four hon. Members who will consider the Bill upstairs will represent the majority—if there is a majority in favour tonight—and it is important that they are distanced from the arguments. Our recent experience of certain private Bills, such as the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, is that hon. Members were not allowed to table amendments on what, under the normal Bill procedure, would have been Report stage.
Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I want the Bill to proceed to its next stage. I am certainly not happy about the private Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman should use his best endeavours with his hon. Friends, including those in favour of planned, strategic organisation of markets as opposed to market forces—there may not be many of those in the Tory party, but there are certainly more now than there used to be—to ensure that there are two hon. Members on the Committee who will allow justifiable amendments so that the House can have another bite at the cherry on Report.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow his general points, although I agree that it is highly desirable that there should be people of an independent mind—and I am sure that there will be—who will properly and closely consider whatever is put before them. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the judgment of two, three or four Members of Parliament resulting in a final decision is very different from a full discussion in the House with all hon. Members able to make their points on the relevant amendments.
If the Bill proceeds to its next stage, it is important that those appointed to serve on the Committee read what has been said during this debate and take on board the fact that not by any stretch of the imagination could the Bill be said to have the support of those hon. Members present tonight.
I wish to deal with three generalisations that have arisen during the debate. The first is what the catchment area should be around the market. My hon. Friend the Member

for Ilford, South informed us that the distance of 6⅔ miles dates from Roman rule. I know that the market dates from Henry III, but the catchment area obviously dates back a lot further than that. I do not follow the logic of what he tries to persuade us, which is to the effect that because the distance was 6⅔ miles in the days when people could not get about, it should now be much smaller when people can get about more easily. I would have thought that the logic was the reverse and that, in order to protect the trade and the interests of those who live in the vicinity, such a radius might be extended rather than made smaller.
The second point is about whether it is an unfair restraint of trade for Romford to say that it has had the right for so long and that it should preserve it, never mind the interests of Redbridge. I am prepared to make that point because it can be raised legitimately as an argument against me. I reject the logic of that because we have 300 traders trading in Romford and we cannot sensibly talk about restraint of trade when 300 people are competing with each other.
Sometimes my party gets in a muddle on this. I think that we could draw a parallel between my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and the policy of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on brewers. It does not seem to be compatible with Conservative philosophy that people who have built up their businesses over many years—200 years in the case of some brewers and by tradition at least 200 years for some of the family interests that have traded regularly at Romford—should lose their business, with no compensation being offered. I was very glad to hear some Opposition Members voicing similar opinions.

Mr. Barron: I do not know whether Opposition Members would go all the way with the hon. Gentleman on compensation for the brewing industry which makes the biggest contribution to Conservative party funds.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I understand that that might be a reason for Opposition Members not to go along the same road as me, but I am sure that they would have other and better reasons, were they to take an opposite line. I am sure that they would not allow narrow party political bias to override their natural desire to look after the public interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred in his opening remarks to the applications that he has had. He told the House that he has had 240 applications for stalls at Redbridge. [Interruption.] That is the very point; the sedentary intervention asks how many of those have come from Romford. I too should like to know that. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me how many of the applications are from people who already have stalls in Romford market.
It may be that all that we will do, should the Bill go through, is to move the trade down the road from where it is well established. Even if that does not happen, the historical justification for the laws that have been in force for nearly 800 years is that there is only a limited amount of business to be done in these areas. If we are to have an efficient service in the public interest and if we are to look after consumers and safeguard the livelihood of the traders, we must have safeguards such as exist under the writ of Henry III.
I invite the House to throw the Bill out at this stage. Should there unfortunately be inadequate numbers


listening at the moment to hear what the argument is about, I hope that at a later stage hon. Members will read the debate and make their own judgment.

Ms. Joan Walley: The longer I listen to the debate, the more convinced I am that the many objections that we have heard to the Bill are justified. We have heard of the many detrimental effects that the Bill would have not just on street traders in Romford but on the local shopkeepers in the communities where markets exist. Such points make Opposition Members very concerned about the Bill. It must also be said that there are strong objections, not least because it sets a precedent. If we really are talking in the absence of total strategic planning, which was a point well highlighted during the earlier stage of the debate, we shall make even more problems for ourselves in local government.
We have heard that there are flaws in the Bill. As a relatively new Member of the House, I do not consider myself as being someone who is as learned in parliamentary procedure as many of my hon. Friends, but, even so, it is clear to me from what has been said that there are flaws. The problems that would ensue, if the Bill went to Committee and we were not able to make amendments to it, should be considered when we vote later.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), in whose constituency the proposed market lies, that it would be to local and public advantage. I would like to ask him to whose local and public advantage he referred. Was he referring to the developers and the large retailers, who will presumably, as a result of market forces, be taking profits from the new development and from the shopping precinct which is being developed, or to the stallholders, and the local people, who will probably find it inconvenient to go into Ilford to shop in the proposed new market? Many comments have been made about the lack of proper provision for highways, for transport and for all the other planning matters that should be taken on board when considering the Bill.
From conversations that I have had with elected members in Redbridge, I know that the planners have not even been able to arrange for bus stops to work properly. I have heard stories of 13 buses stopping at the same bus stop. I do not have any confidence, therefore, that the necessary considerations have been taken on board. Various aspects, especially the fact that there is no strategic planning that could reconcile the conflicting views and pressures, lead the Opposition to oppose the Bill.
Unlike the rest of the country, it must be said that the south-east has never benefited to any great extent from the municipal reforms that provided for the building and operating of so many excellent indoor markets, with all the proper facilities of fair, healthy, hygienic and safe trading. I believe that in our discussions so far on markets, whether indoor or outdoor, we have not shown any concern about the whole infrastructure which goes into supporting a market, such as the cleansing operations. Instead the south-east and even urbanised areas of London have suffered from a crude and opportunistic free-for-all. In what was known as inner London, the late-lamented Greater London council managed to control street trading and similar markets by means of its general powers, which were enforced by the boroughs. In outer London the

historic town centres, of which Kingston and Romford are good examples, had the long-established market rights dating back to time immemorial about which we have heard so much this evening.
We have before us what is in all repects a grubby little Bill, which is designed to upset the pattern of history in the interests—I have to say it—of commercial opportunism.
I understand from the sponsors of the Bill that they have seen fit to allocate £50,000 and £4,000 a month plus expenses for their lobbyists. Their proposal is obviously not so simple and clear-cut as it seems, or as the hon. Members supporting the Bill would have us believe. We were told that the petition had 6,000 signatures. I understand that many people did not institute the petition of their own accord. They signed their names when the major retailers thought that it would be in their commercial interest to get the petition under way.
I take great exception to the comments about tatty old markets which, we have been told, are out of date and have no place in modern market policies. Any former councillor who has been involved in local government knows that the operation of retail markets is not merely a matter of providing some space for a few traders. There are complicated implications for all local shopping facilities —parking, cleansing, hygiene, consumer safety and regulation.
I do not know whether the Minister intends to contribute to the debate. I noted a recent report in The Independent of her visit to the Lambeth Walk street market. I am sure that she has had ample opportunity during the Vauxhall by-election campaign to see for herself how the once thriving street market in Lambeth Walk has been laid to waste by developers and the competition of other shopping centres. That factor must be taken on board.
The Bill will allow Redbridge council to set up a market in Ilford or, to be more precise, will allow private interests to do so, with the blessing of their friends on the council. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and I wonder whether he has misinterpreted clause 3(2). Is that subsection all about setting up two markets or does it enable the council to invest in the market and then ensure that it is quickly privatized, which means that we are talking about one market? I say that with some trepidation because the council is spilt on this issue.
Anyone who has done his or her homework will know that it is not a matter of bringing before the House a Bill that has the full support of the large Conservative majority on the council. My information is that at least one third of the Conservative councillors do not support it—hardly a portent of success or widespread support within the community. Hon. Members who said that they felt bound to speak on behalf of their constituents should not necessarily be judged by council decisions. I am sorry that there are not a large number of hon. Members present to make it clear that this proposal does not have the 100 per cent. support of the Conservative majority on Redbridge council.
I can, however, well understand why multiple retailers and Ilford developers want the attraction of choice and interest for shoppers in one of those up-market markets about which we have heard. Unfortunately, this is bound to detract from support for small retailers trying to get a


foothold in the economy. Many people and many small shops near the existing market stand to lose much if the Bill is passed.
The Bill's sponsors need to be alerted to the fact that the demise of small shops will reduce the business rate income —an important point which has not been noted. In inner London and the east end, there are many streets and shops where business income has been greatly reduced. The introduction of a substantial six-day week market in the centre of Ilford is also bound to create a loss of trade, not only to places such as Romford, but to the local shopping centres and markets of Redbridge and its adjoining boroughs.
I have a letter from the National Market Traders Federation. We must take into account the concern that some of us have for those who trade in the Romford markets. The letter states:
The traders are opposed to new markets, as they have built up their businesses under strict rules and procedures. When they first attended Romford market they had to stand in the casual queue with no certainty of getting a stall. As they progressed up the list by regular attendance they gained a stall every week but not in the same place. After a period of up to eight years on the casual list they finally obtained a regular stall and further service on the market allowed them to transfer to better stalls as they became vacant.
That is the practice by which markets all over the country have become established, and the process by which traders have built up their livelihood. We should think carefully about removing their livelihoods when the clauses in the Bill which deal with compensation are, as the hon. Member for Upminster said, grossly inadequate.
The federation also brought to my attention the fact that
Romford, in common with other well-run markets, has strict conditions attached to the trader's 'licence' which restricts traders as to what they can sell and they are also required to trade in a responsible manner.
Anyone who is familiar with local markets will be aware of that. I am concerned about the proposal contained in clause 3(2) which could hand over the responsibility of running the markets to private developers.
As the federation states:
Private operators are not always responsible in the way that they run their markets and do not enforce strict trading practices to protect the shopping public and a 'bad' market at Ilford could reflect badly on the responsible traders at Romford.
That is an important point, which is worth making.
The Bill is not specific about the site of Ilford market. I understand that a site has been earmarked already. I stand to be corrected on that, but I understand that the site is within one mile from the town hall. As usual of late, the site is, at present, a car park. Hon. Members will therefore ask how a loss of parking spaces can be reconciled with the hope, expressed earlier, for an increase in shoppers. We must also question the provisions of other related matters.
I have a copy of a letter from David C. Humble and Company, independent financial advisers, who wrote to the director of land management of Redbridge council, objecting in the strongest possible terms to a planning proposal which is, I understand, currently under consideration and which would take away one existing car park to make way for a large scale office development. The company is expressing concern about the status quo and

the lack of car parking facilities in Ilford. If we are to lose that car park, we should be concerned about the loss of a car park which is to be the very site of the market.
We must also question the provisions for proper food hygiene, refuse storage and disposal, storage of barrows and stores. Anybody who knows anything about street markets, especially if they have been local councillors, knows of the many complaints about street traders who infringe on the amount of space and parking space available and the times when it is possible to deliver to market stalls. Even traders' vehicles will occupy a substantial area of car parking which is, at present, available to shoppers. I wonder whether these detailed items have been taken into account.
We are talking about two issues: whether we are setting a national precedent and whether there are special circumstances in which we should not support the Bill. I submit that the problems that I have mentioned, coupled with the difficult access to the site, constitute a strong case against the Bill.
Opposition Members might be more inclined to support the Bill if it provided for a well-thought-out scheme with some evidence of the strategic planning of which we heard so much from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), relevant to shopping in east London and to all the environmental and planning implications. As far as I can see, the Bill merely offers those who live or work in the area the prospect of traffic chaos, dirt, disruption and widespread adverse effects for shoppers as well as established market traders. The Bill —which Redbridge council no doubt sees as a model of late 20th-century enterprise—is no more than a grubby piece of opportunism from the flog-it-off, get-rich-quick school of politics.

Mr. Barron: The free market.

Ms. Walley: The free market, indeed.
I have learnt not to expect any concern for the environment or the health and safety of the public from such people, but in this instance they have exceeded themselves by not even caring about the effects on other traders or the wider interests of shoppers. That is reflected in the number of technical flaws in the Bill.
I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and others, who have pointed out to me that the Bill's enactment would represent a major departure from a nationwide policy of many years' standing. Regardless of the position in Redbridge, the Opposition are anxious to avoid the creation of a precedent that would allow the Conservative car park groups to exploit similar opportunities in constituencies all over the country, many of which have excellent retail markets established by people who knew what municipal improvement and initiative really meant. How sad and how significant that, instead of organising strategic planning for London and for councillors who look to the future health and welfare of their boroughs, the House must now spend its time considering a Bill whose sole purpose is to maximise the commercial value of a car park.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of the Government's view. It is, of course, for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford,


South (Mr. Thorne) to respond to the detail of the debate, but it can fairly be said that, whatever the outcome, many of us will wish to take the opportunity of visiting the Romford charter market. A number of hon. Members were not aware that the market is 742 years old. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), has been present throughout the debate but, because of his ministerial status, has been unable to participate. No doubt we shall be visiting his constituency to see the market.
Long-established charter rights such as this can be set aside only by Act of Parliament, and it is for Redbridge to persuade Parliament that the powers that it seeks are justified. It is traditional for the Government to take a neutral stance on private Bills, and tonight's Bill is no exception to that rule. The Government have considered its content and have no objections in principle to the powers sought by the council. The Department has raised no observations; we take the view that the issues raised in relation to markets and existing market rights are local matters in which the Government do not wish to intervene.
There is one petition against the Bill, and the petitioner will have an opportunity to present his objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine the issues in detail, and will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence—not that I wish to suggest that many of tonight's contributions have not been expert in their various ways.
I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed to Committee in the conventional way for detailed consideration.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the Chamber since seven o'clock this evening, apart from nipping out to do some photocopying, and have endured the no-smoking rule that applies in it. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak briefly, because I certainly intend to allow the sponsor of the Bill to answer some of the points raised this evening.
I take exception to a remark made earlier by a Conservative Member who has now left the Chamber to the effect that if one is a Labour Member of Parliament serving a constituency having a Labour-controlled local authority, one should not make any remarks that are contrary to that local authority's wishes—and that the same applies to Conservatives. I have an excellent relationship with my own local authority, but we disagree from time to time on one or two issues.
The Minister stated that the Government have no preference either way but that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, and that anyone who intends opposing it will leave disappointed when the votes are counted. It is obvious from previous debates that private Bills which have the Government's support and which are the subject of Government whipping enjoy a majority vote in favour of them.
The Bill represents the thin end of the wedge. It cannot be considered in isolation. If the Bill receives a Second Reading it will have a domino effect on other markets throughout the country, which will come under fire from people out to make a fast buck and a quick profit—and to hell with long-term planning. Doncaster could find itself in

such a situation. It has a historic market on the site of the old Roman road. I do not doubt for one moment that the existing market at Romford provides similar excellent facilities. Doncaster market offers fresh fruit, vegetables and fish, haberdashery, and other goods. It is protected by the rule that does not permit another market nearer than 6⅔ miles. If that rule were waived, it would have a tremendous effect on Doncaster market. That is one of the reasons why I am very concerned about getting shot of the royal writ to which the Bill refers.
Under the Bill, the only thing that is certain is that the old royal writ will disappear and that another market will be established nearer than 6⅔ miles away from Romford. The Bill makes no mention of improved commerce or of any other positive element. It is no use people arguing that the Bill will not have a knock-on effect in other areas, because that will be the case once a precedent is set in this Chamber.
Reference has been made to good strategic planning. If a bad planning decision is made, future generations will have to live with it. There are examples in Yorkshire and in other parts of the country of that happening, where subsequent generations have faced a host of problems as a consequence of someone making an adverse planning decision.
In Doncaster we have an excellent market and an abattoir which serves farmers for miles around. Quite rightly, the local authority seeks to protect the market. There are also other markets outside the 6⅔ miles. The market at Mexborough is an excellent little market and should certainly be protected. Unfortunately, within our avaricious society many car boot sales have been springing up throughout my area, causing all sorts of problems for local residents becauses the increased traffic does nothing to enhance local villages. The towns in my constituency have suffered many problems due to car boot sales.
I want to allow time for the sponsor of the Bill to respond to the debate, but I should mention briefly the petition which carries 6,500 signatures. A few weeks ago I handed in to 10 Downing street a petition against the poll tax and that had many more signatures, but I do not suppose that the Prime Minister even saw that petition and if she did I am sure that she took no notice of it. The petition to which the hon. Gentleman referred is, therefore, of no concern because the people who signed it want the market and intend to exploit it and profit from it, but no doubt there is also a petition from those who do not want the market within than 6⅔ miles.
I hope that the House will reject the Bill as it upsets the fundamental principle of the distance of 6⅔ miles. There is enough greed in society without the House endorsing more greed. I have examined the promotional leaflet that Redbridge council has handed out. There certainly seems to be a large number of car parks. Perhaps Redbridge should have planned more stores and other premises that attract business. The borough council appears to be more concerned with car parks, and perhaps it will have too many car parks without sufficient cars to fill them. That emphasises that good planning is needed to ensure that everything is orderly in future.
The Bill causes great concern. I am not satisfied that certain things will not happen if the Bill is given a Second Reading. I am not quite sure about the safety factor. It would appear from the promotional leaflet that the market stalls will be under a viaduct. The sponsor will probably correct me, but occasionally we get bad weather and I


would hate to be a customer of one of those stalls when an articulated lorry went over the top of the market. It has been said that the market was hemmed in and that there could be no expansion for the 68 stalls. Although the map does not give all the finer details, if I had a few million pounds and wanted to add another 60, 80 or 100 stalls, I could certainly find room to do so. Therefore, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) who spoke against the Bill had every right to be concerned. We do not want people chasing a cake that is becoming smaller and ending up with no living at all. We have a duty to protect the existing market stalls that are there by royal charter. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will allay my fears about the possible knock-on effects of the Bill. People outside are waiting to move in to exploit certain circumstances.
Doncaster is a first-class market town. People enjoy visiting it because of its compactness. When I was on the local authority, it used to wish that a certain organisation was in Timbuktu. I must admit that I was a bit of a philistine at that time, but markets have changed, and those that have built up over the centuries have charm and character. No matter how clean and tidy a new market is, it will not have the character and flavour of a centuries-old market. I hope that the hon. Member for Ilford, South will think again and will withdraw the Bill until such time as the points made by hon. Members can be satisfied.

Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I shall try to answer as many questions as I can. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was concerned that the Bill would circumvent the planning process. I reassure him that it must still go through the normal planning procedure.
As the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, the market is partly under a road. It would therefore be quite unsuitable for a football pitch, as was suggested earlier. I shall return to the points made by the hon. Member for Don Valley later.
The strategic plan for Redbridge, which was introduced in 1980, included provision for a market. It was therefore very much on the cards when the Greater London council was in existence. I have no reason to suppose that if that authority had been in existence it would have objected to its promotion now.
Retailers are in favour of the market. I have not been approached by any retailer who is not in favour of it. Local traders and the local chamber of trade were responsible for the petition. It is not a parliamentary petition but merely an expression of support for the Bill. It is not couched in parliamentary terms, so it will not therefore be put in the Bag. I was not a party to it, but if I had been I would have offered certain advice. Local traders and the local chamber of trade did it on their own initiative, and in the time available they did very well.
Rates and competition with shopkeepers were mentioned. These are taken into account by the level of charges for a market stall. Rent for stalls will be paid to the local authority, and this will benefit ratepayers.

Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about rents being paid to the local authority. In the foreseeable future, a substantial part of those rents will be used to offset the capital costs of

construction and development work. In reality, for a considerable period thereafter, there will be no significant benefit to the ratepayers of the borough.

Mr. Thorne: I do not agree. A shop must be fitted and equipped, and inevitably there is a contribution towards the costs of constructing a market stall. I do not foresee that being a major proportion of the cost. The ratepayers' investment will be well worth while.
The police were consulted. A car park which will take 1,400 cars is now under construction and that will more than make up for the 60 car places which will be displaced by the development.
The hon. Member for Leyton spent a considerable time expressing concern about the availability of funds for roads in his area. He was given an assurance by Mr. Price, the chief executive of the London borough of Redbridge, that there are no plans to spend further money on roads in Ilford town centre in the foreseeable future. Mr. Price cannot bind his successors or the council into the distant future, but there is no question that Ilford town centre will in any way be competing for funds now with the London borough of Waltham Forest for Leyton and Leytonstone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) expressed concern about the number of markets and compensation. I have already given an undertaking that compensation will be calculated six months from the time at which the market is opened, not six months from the Bill being enacted.

Mr. Barron: Is there any legal precedent for people being compensated for the loss of retail trade? Has the relevant clause, on which I have so far been unable to speak, any precedent in law?

Mr. Thorne: Not that I know of. The compensation is payable to the London borough of Havering. It is there to compensate for any effect that there might be on its market, about which it was concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned negotiation between local authorities. As I understand it, there has been a singular lack of negotiation or response to negotiation from his local authority. His remarks this evening have gone further than any previous negotiations in that regard. If the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight, as I hope that it will, there will be an opportunity for further negotiation. That is what should happen before the matter reaches an opposed Bill Committee. I am sure that Redbridge will want to obtain as much agreement as possible.
I have every confidence that the four hon. Members appointed to an opposed Bill Committee would view the matter in an unbiased way. I have served on such Committees myself in the past and I well remember the undertaking that has to be given. I have always been extremely impressed by the way in which Opposition Members have looked at such matters in an impartial way and have done their best, together with Conservative Members, to reach a proper and fair decision.
I have explained in some detail how the figure of 6⅔ miles was arrived at. The proposed market will be 5¼ miles away and that seems to me to be a fair distance. I believe that it will have no effect upon the market in Romford. As I have said, there were 250 applications. A survey has been carried out by some experts, G. L. Hearn and Partners,


who expressed the opinion that the effect on Romford market would be negligible, and I believe that that is correct.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) expressed such a negative attitude to the Bill. As I said earlier, it is important to give people an opportunity to start in business. It would be wrong to stop people fulfilling the entirely laudable aim of trading on their own from a market stall when they cannot afford the expense of a shop. Marks and Spencer and British Home Stores started in just that way.
It has been said that the Bill has many flaws. I do not accept that the measure is in any major way different from the majority of Bills that come before the House. Corrections must often be made, and the Committee is the correct place for them to be made.
Reference was made to the question of food hygiene. The stalls will be subject to the same regulations as the stalls that at present exist in the Romford market.
The hon. Member for Don Valley wondered whether petitions were of any value. I disagree with him wholeheartedly on that issue. I believe that petitions have a valuable role to play as an expression of opinion. I am sure that due note was taken of the petition that he presented.

Mr. Redmond: I am pleased to hear that. I hope that when, in the not too distant future, I present another petition, I will be able to count on the hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Thorne: As I say, due note is taken of petitions, even though we do not always get the result we would like. I am convinced that it is worth putting in a petition on all occasions as an expression of opinion.
My answer to remarks that were made about the question of greed is that this land is owned by the local authority. Thus, what is proposed will benefit the ratepayers as a whole.
I cannot say what safety factors exist in connection with vehicles crossing the bridge which goes over the railway. That was designed and paid for by the GLC, and I am sure that the GLC looked carefully into the question of safety at the relevant time.
I was asked about the number of people who had signed the Romford petition. I counted over 100 names with addresses in Romford in the time available to me. I regard that as significant. There were a number of others from East Ham and elsewhere.
This is a modest Bill. It proposes a site within one mile of Ilford town centre, which is well built up. Only a small number of sites are available there. A modest number of stalls could be sited on this piece of land. I cannot see how it can be claimed that that would have an adverse effect on Romford market.
I have received a letter from a Mrs. Norris who lives in Romford. It was addressed to the public relations officer of the London borough of Redbridge. She writes:
Dear Sir, I read in our local paper that Romford market stallholders are going to complain about your wanting to open a market. I feel that these stallholders have got a damned cheek, when I am told that many of them go to other markets on 'no market' day here. You should look into this, and when the Redbridge Bill is read in the House, somebody who is able should have their say for the people of Redbridge and the east London side of Romford. Hope you succeed. Yours truly.

That lady has the right idea. She believes that there should be competition and a full opportunity for people to have the chance of a wide variety of trading. I therefore urge the House to give the Bill a Second reading.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not wish to delay the House and I must at the outset declare that I do not have a constituency interest in the issue, although I have a passing interest in the number of private Bills that come before the House. My comments will, therefore, go somewhat wider that the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Thorne: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 92.

Division No. 222]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Grist, Ian


Alton, David
Ground, Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Ashby, David
Hague, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Atkins, Robert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Beith, A. J.
Hannam, John


Bellingham, Henry
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bendall, Vivian
Harris, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Benyon, W.
Hawkins, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hayward, Robert


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howard, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Howells, Geraint


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Kennedy, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Key, Robert


Curry, David
Kilfedder, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkwood, Archy


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Favell, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fearn, Ronald
Knowles, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Franks, Cecil
Lightbown, David


Freeman, Roger
Lilley, Peter


French, Douglas
Livsey, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gill, Christopher
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gow, Ian
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maclean, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gregory, Conal
Major, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marshall, John (Hendon S)






Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ryder, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Sackville, Hon Tom


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Mills, Iain
Shaw, David (Dover)


Miscampbell, Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mitchell, Sir David
Speller, Tony


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Steel, Rt Hon David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Summerson, Hugo


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudd, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patnick, Irvine
Wallace, James


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Redwood, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Riddick, Graham



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Tim Devlin.


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Lamond, James


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Loyden, Eddie


Bermingham, Gerald
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bidwell, Sydney
McFall, John


Blunkett, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Malins, Humfrey


Buckley, George J.
Marek, Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Callaghan, Jim
Meacher, Michael


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Canavan, Dennis
Michael, Alun


Carrington, Matthew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Miller, Sir Hal


Clay, Bob
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Clelland, David
Nellist, Dave


Cohen, Harry
Neubert, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Norris, Steve


Cousins, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dalyell, Tam
Redmond, Martin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Richardson, Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Rogers, Allan


Dixon, Don
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alexander
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Eastham, Ken
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Steinberg, Gerry


Flynn, Paul
Stott, Roger


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Turner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Walley, Joan


Haynes, Frank
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hinchliffe, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Winnick, David


Illsley, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Jones, Barry (Atyn &amp; Deeside)
Wise, Mrs Audrey





Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Richard Shepherd and



Mr. Ian McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 88.

Division No. 223]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Alton, David
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jack, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Jackson, Robert


Atkins, Robert
Janman, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beith, A. J.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Kennedy, Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Key, Robert


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Kirkhope, Timothy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Kirkwood, Archy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knapman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bottomley, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knowles, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lang, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Lawrence, Ivan


Bright, Graham
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lightbown, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lilley, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Livsey, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Cope, Rt Hon John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Cormack, Patrick
Maclean, David


Curry, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Major, Rt Hon John


Durant, Tony
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evennett, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
Mills, Iain


Fearn, Ronald
Miscampbell, Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mitchell, Sir David


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Roger


Forth, Eric
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Franks, Cecil
Moore, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gill, Christopher
Mudd, David


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Patnick, Irvine


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Price, Sir David


Hannam, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Riddick, Graham


Hawkins, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayward, Robert
Rost, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howard, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)
Speller, Tony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon David






Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Warren, Kenneth


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thorne, Neil
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Malcolm
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trippier, David



Trotter, Neville
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Tim Devlin.


Wallace, James



NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Bell, Stuart
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alexander


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eastham, Ken


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Buckley, George J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Fraser, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clay, Bob
Hanley, Jeremy


Cohen, Harry
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David





Home Robertson, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Redmond, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ruddock, Joan


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McFall, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Vaz, Keith


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wareing, Robert N.


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Neubert, Michael



Norris, Steve
Tellers for the Noes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Richard Shepherd and


Pike, Peter L.
Mrs. Ann Winterton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Bill and the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. HeathcoatAmory.]

Employment Bill

Postponed proceeding on further consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), resumed.

New Clause 19

INTEREST ON INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AWARDS

`In Schedule 9 to the 1978 Act (procedure etc. of industrial tribunals), for paragraphs 6A there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
6A—(1) Industrial tribunals shall have the power to award simple interest on sums payable in pursuance of their decisions (principal awards) in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) The decision as to whether to award for interest on a principal award shall be in the discretion of the tribunal, but it shall be for the party against whom the principal award is made to show cause why some interest should not be awarded.
(3) Interest shall be awarded at a rate not exceeding the rate for the time prescribed pursuant to section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.
(4) Interest shall accrue on all sums awarded by a tribunal, without any need for a decision to that effect by the tribunal, at the rate referred to in subparagraph (3) above from the date when the tribunal's decision is sent to the parties with the date of payment.
(5) The tribunal shall have no power to exclude the application of subparagraph (4) above.
(6) Interest shall not be awarded for a period commencing before:

(a) in the case of an award under section 53(4) of section 72 of this Act, the effective date of termination as defined by section 55;
(b) in the case of a redundancy payment, the relevant date defined by section 80 of this Act;
(c) in the case of an order under section 11(8) of this Act the date when the relevant deduction or payment was made;
(d) in the case of a guarantee payment, the date in respect of which the payment is claimed;
(e) in the case of a payment to which an employee is entitled by virtue of section 19 of this Act, the date when the period of suspension began;
(f) in any other, the date when application was made to the tribunal.".'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to introduce, at the discretion of the tribunal, interest on awards made by the tribunal from dates preceding the announcement of the decision to make an award and for compulsory interest from the making of the award.
I understand that last year there was a consultative paper published by the Department of Employment indicating an intention to bring in interest on tribunal awards, although draft regulations are still awaited. This would appear an appropriate opportunity to press ahead with that.
The powers under schedule 9 of the Employment Protection Act 1978 invest the Secretary of State with power to confer interest on tribunal awards, but experience has shown that that power has seldom, if ever, been used. Indeed, the power is only to award interest on sums from the date at which the judgment is made and not the date from which the wrong has been perpetrated and in respect of which an award has been made. That differs

from most other cases in which there has been a delict or a tort, where the interest is usually payable on a settlement from the date at which the wrong was committed.
I believe that the reason often proffered for that difference is that it is argued that the tribunal system operates more quickly and therefore people who are in receipt of awards have not been out of pocket for as long. I believe that it would be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House that litigation in the courts involving a tortious action can sometimes go on for many years. Therefore, there is often a significant difference. That ignores, however, those cases where for some reason or another, and sometimes not through any fault on the part of the claimant, a case going to a tribunal can be drawn out. It may even then go on to appeal, and, therefore, it can be some considerable time before an award is made.
The purpose of the new clause is to insert a new paragraph into schedule 9 of the 1978 Act to the effect that industrial tribunals would have the power to award simple interest on sums payable in pursuance of their decisions. That would be made at the discretion of the tribunal, although there would be a presumption in favour of interest being made payable, and it would be for the party on the losing side to put forward an argument showing why that should not be the case. One can foresee circumstances in which it might be argued that there had been time wasting caused by the claimants.
The interest awarded would be at the judicial rate prescribed by law under the Judgements Act 1838. Interest rates are not prescribed in such a statutory form north of the border, and it would not be unreasonable for Acts of Parliament that straddled the border to provide for the same rates.
10.30 pm
Subsection (4) relates to those sums of interest accruing from the date of announcement of the award. The rate would be compulsory, and not at the tribunal's discretion. Subsection (5) describes the dates from which the tribunal would have discretion to award interest. Subsection (6) should refer to section 53(4) "or" and not "of" section 72 and the effective date of termination. In cases of written or unfair dismissal, that would be the date of dismissal as defined by the legislation. In the case of redundancy payments, it would be the date of leaving. The purpose of the subsection is to make clear the date from which interest may be awarded.
On at least two occasions the judiciary has expressed a view on the tribunal's lack of power in awarding interest. In 1981 in UCATT v. Brain in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Donaldson, who is now Master of the Rolls, said:
There is no power to award interest on money awarded by a Tribunal as compensation for unfair dismissal … Whatever the reason, I think the time has come when Parliament, if it has a convenient opportunity, ought to consider whether it is really right that employees who are unfairly dismissed should not only have to wait for their money, which may be inevitable, but when they do wait for it they should get compensation in depreciated currency as a result of the passage of time and without interest.
That is a powerful judicial dictum. Lord Justice Donaldson calls for Parliament to consider this matter at "a convenient opportunity" and I can think of no more convenient opportunity for the House to address itself to a judicial plea than 10.31 pm on Report on the Employment Bill.
In the 1987 Caledonian Mining case Mr. Justice Popplewell echoed Lord Justice Donaldson's plea and said:
We cannot pass from this case without expressing our dismay at the present position about interest. It will be observed that these men were dismissed over three years ago and have therefore been left out of their money for some time. The time that it has taken for this matter to be resolved is due to no fault of theirs. It is difficult to understand why interest which is available to parties in the high court should not be available to litigants before an Industrial Tribunal which is intended to be less formal. It is a blot on the administration of justice.
Those are strong words from the judicial bench.
I hope that the House will take this opportunity to remove this blot on the administration of justice. The new clause does not insist on interest rates above the level that would normally be expected to be paid in judicial cases. It reflects the concern which has been expressed more than once by the judiciary. It tries to tackle an anomaly.
There has been little give in Committee and on Report by the Government on Opposition amendments. I hope that the new clause commends itself to the Government. Even if the Minister tells us that the wording is not suitable, an undertaking to introduce the measure in another place in a proper form would suit our purposes. I commend the new clause to the House. It will ensure that there is greater justice for those who take their case to an industrial tribunal and are successful.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is entirely right to imply that throughout Committee we always responded to good points. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our attitude this evening will adhere to that tradition to the full.
The effect of the new clause is twofold. First, it would provide directly for interest to accrue from the promulgation of industrial tribunal decisions and so bypass the Secretary of State's existing order-making power under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended, which provides for interest on tribunal awards. Secondly, it would give industrial tribunals a discretion to provide for interest on awards to accrue, even before the promulgation of their decisions.
The first of those aims is unnecessary. In the consultation paper on industrial tribunals issued last year, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, we stated our intention of implementing the order-making power in the 1978 Act to enable interest to be payable on tribunal awards. The proposals in the consultation paper were generally welcomed and, on present plans, the necessary order will be laid later this year. While it may be argued that there may have been some delay on this, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his new clause is, in the event, unnecessary.
The second aim of the new clause—to provide for interest to apply even before a tribunal award—is unacceptable. In our view, the existing powers in the 1978 Act as amended are perfectly adequate and strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the interests of the respondent. Therefore, the Government would say—

Mr. Wallace: The Under-Secretary talks about seeking power to award interest before a decision is made. I may have been ambiguous and I apologise to the House if I did not express myself clearly. We seek interest from a date

preceding the award, from the date of the wrong. That applies in most cases of tort. Why should it be different in cases of redundancy or dismissal?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. I was perhaps paying too much attention to the wording of the new clause rather than the intent as the hon. Gentleman expressed it. There is no doubt that the wording of the new clause, particularly subsection (6), if accepted, would enable interest to run, not merely from the date of judgment, but from some previous date. According to the wording of the new clause, it need not even be the date on which the action commenced. It could be the date from which the wrong accrued. That is a novel proposition, and certainly it is not the way in which the High Court or the county court work.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the words used by Mr. Justice Popplewell in the 1987 case, when he talked of
a blot on the administration of justice.
My recollection of that case, backed up by the fact that I have the law report in front of me, was that the point made in the judgment was that the defendants had been kept out of their money for three years. The judgment was given in 1987, although the tribunal hearings had been in 1984. Therefore, the blot on the administration of justice was the fact that three years had elapsed before judgment was given. It is precisely that sort of blot on justice with which the order, which will be laid in due course under the 1978 Act, would deal.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Is my hon. Friend saying that to pay interest from the date of the wrongdoing would be novel? Surely the Inland Revenue charges interest on money owed to it, not from the date of the hearing but from the date from which the money was originally owed. That is similar to what is proposed by the new clause.

Mr. Nicholls: Mercifully, my duties do not include justifying the Inland Revenue and all its works. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says and feel more than a twinge of sympathy with him. What we propose about the implementation of the power in the 1978 Act is very much in accordance with general practice at the moment in relation to both High Court and county court matters, and deals precisely with the point about the blot on the administration of justice made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Haynes: It is all right for the Minister to brush to one side the question of Inland Revenue and interest. It works only one way, and it works only one way here. That is why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) tabled the new clause. Let us have the facts of life, and the Minister at the Box telling us home truths about interest in relation to tribunals. He knows as well as me that many workers suffer because they cannot get to the tribunal; there are that many wanting to go.
I can remember when the Government were telling the National Coal Board to close pits willy-nilly. Some people wanted to claim their rights at the tribunal for unfair dismissal—oh yes, there were a lot of unfair dismissals during the miners' dispute. The Minister will probably remember that, although he may not have been a Minister at the time; if I remember rightly, he used to sit at the back of the Chamber. I used to enjoy some of his contributions,


and I followed some of them because they had upset me. He has upset me this evening as well, because he has not spoken correctly and truly to the new clause.
If a person owes money to the Inland Revenue he will be charged interest on it, but if it is the other way around —if the Inland Revenue owes the person money—there is no question of interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] It is high time that it was changed. Someone says, "There is", and I hope that it is a Whip: I hope that he will stand up and say what he means. I happen to know that it does not work that way round.
It could take a person three years to get his unfair dismissal case to the tribunal, given the Government's actions in industry and what they have done to workers' rights. Never mind the employer; this lot look after him. I am talking about the worker—the person who provides the necessary. The employer could not enjoy himself without the employee's contribution.
The new clause asks for fairness to the employee. If it is to take a long time for the case to reach the tribunal, interest should be paid: there is no doubt about that. I hope that the Minister will get up and say, "I agree with the new clause." He has not said that yet. Why does he not speak one way or the other, so that we know exactly where he stands? [Interruption.] That is a Whip interfering with what I am saying. He should not be saying anything. He is sat there yawping at me. If he wants to say anything, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he should indicate that to you and then get up and make his contribution.
If we vote on the new clause, I want to know which Lobby the Minister will go into. Will he support it or not? Sitting here listening, I thought, "I wonder who wrote that speech for him."

Mr. Ian McCartney: He should be sacked.

Mr. Haynes: I had the impression that the Minister did not really believe what he was saying. I hope that he will get up again and tell us—I gather that he is not going to get up again, but if there is a vote we shall find out which Lobby he goes into. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall come back later and tell him what I think about him. He has the opportunity to speak again: I will give him the right—and I am sure that you will, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to stand up again at that Dispatch Box and tell us what he is going to do, what he really means and whether he supports the new clause.
The Minister may talk about Mr. Justice Popplewell, but we are talking about the facts of life. There is no need to point to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; he has made his case. I am talking about the Minister. He sits on the Government Front Bench, and he speaks tonight on behalf of the Secretary of State, who sits there laughing his head off as though it were all a big joke. [Interruption.] Does someone want me to give way? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members have taken me off my train of thought now; I do not know where I am. Oh yes, I was talking about the grin on the face of the Secretary of State.
This is a serious matter, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to know better. I have served with him on the Committee stages of various employment Bills. We got on ever so well, but tonight the Minister is not saying at the Dispatch Box the things that I want to hear. I hope that we shall hear whether or not he agrees with the new clause. If

he does not inform us verbally, we shall certainly know the answer if there is a vote. Make no mistake—I am coming back to that point.

Mr. McCartney: I support the clause as someone with a number of years' experience representing employees at industrial tribunals. I refer to employers who either do not want a tribunal to consider a dismissal or who, in the period leading up to the hearing, employ methods, fair or foul, to ensure that the hearing does not take place for a considerable length of time after the dismissal in question.
The proposed clause is more than a form of redress for employees whose tribunal appeals are successful after legitimate delays, because it will also spell out the situation to employers who exploit the system to delay hearings or to dissuade employees from taking their cases to the tribunal. At every stage, employers and their solicitors are able to exploit the law to delay proceedings, to the point where the employee will in many cases give up, or where important witnesses to the dismissal, having themselves found employment elsewhere, are no longer easily available.
When a submission is made to a tribunal, it immediately writes to both parties requesting additional information to be passed to ACAS. That offers the bad employer acting against the employee's interests the first opportunity to procrastinate. That is the point at which consultations should take place with ACAS in the hope that an amicable settlement can be reached. If the employee's complaint is found to be legitimate, negotiations can be held and steps taken to resolve the matter, rather than resort to a formal hearing before the tribunal. Alternatively, it may be found that the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
At present, not just weeks but months can go by before an employer agrees to meet with ACAS or to provide it with information on which to decide whether the employee's original submission to the tribunal was legitimate. After the existing initial stage that provides for ACAS to meet the employer and the employee, often the employer fails to provide sufficient information as the basis on which to hold discussions with all the parties concerned.
ACAS will give the employee, or his legal or trade union representative, an opportunity to address themselves to the evidence. By then, the claim may be into its sixth or ninth month, but the tribunal has not yet been consulted. The employee may then be forced to ask the tribunal for further particulars. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) may wish to press the Minister and ask him for further and better particulars and for the reasons why he will probably oppose the new clause.
Another few weeks, even two months, may go by as the employer is forced to provide further and better particulars. Then there is a meeting with ACAS after which ACAS submits a report to the tribunal chairman who may decide to have an initial hearing to decide whether the matter should proceed to a full hearing of the tribunal. Another eight to 12 weeks may go by until the date for a further hearing is fixed. It can take more than a year to establish whether there should be an initial hearing. It is completely unreasonable that under the law as it


stands a former employee with a legitimate claim may be unable to put his case to a tribunal until more than 12 months after the original complaint.
After the initial hearing, a tribunal may decide that there are legitimate reasons for the complaint to have a full hearing. At that stage, the employer, or the employer's legal representative, may step in again seeking additional information from the former employee. For example, if female employees claim that they are receiving less remuneration than their male colleagues, the employer will present a detailed submission asking them for further details about how they calculate their claim in respect of the way in which they regard the job. That may take another three or four months. An employer may give ACAS the impression that it may consider negotiating. For example, the former employee may be in a new post and it may be necessary to calculate the time from the original dismissal to the taking up of the new post so that there can be appropriate discussions about compensation. While all that takes place, time is continuing. At the end of the negotiations the employer may then tell ACAS that it is prepared to go to a full hearing. Another few months have passed without the employee receiving a settlement.
When the case proceeds to a full hearing all the relevant documents have to be prepared. In many instances the cases are very complex in terms of trying to establish a case of unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal whereby there has been a transfer of undertakings and determining whether such a transfer took place under the Employment Protection Act 1975. It takes considerable time to establish evidence, particularly when an employer is not prepared to play his or her full part in establishing the facts of the case.
Ultimately it could take between 18 months and two years and sometimes longer, and cases become unnecessarily complicated by the misuse of legislation or the administrative practices of ACAS or the tribunal system. An employer can deliberately eke out the case to put off the potential hearing of a tribunal.
In many cases there are legitimate reasons for delay. For example, it is legitimate for ACAS to establish as soon as it can practically do so whether a former employee should proceed with a legitimate claim. It is also important that ACAS has the opportunity to try to negotiate a settlement. In most cases a negotiated settlement is in the best interests of the employee or group of employees who have been dismissed. There are legitimate reasons why substantial delays can occur before a tribunal hearing. That is covered in the first part of the new clause.
The Government will not accept, mainly because of their ambivalence to employees' rights, that a substantial number of employers are not prepared to abide by the rules and play fair or adopt a reasonable attitude. Under the new clause, if an employee succeeds in action taken against such unreasonable behaviour, the employer will have to meet the financial consequences of delaying the proceedings of the tribunal.
Under the current law, rightly there is an obligation on the former employee to establish the reasonableness of his case. At an early stage of the proceedings, if it is clear to the tribunal or ACAS that the employee's submission is unreasonable, it is made clear to the employee that if he proceeds the tribunal may award costs against him. I do not object to that provision because I accept that it is a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious applications against an employer. However, if such protection is

available to an employer there must be a quid pro quo for employees, and the new clause offers ample opportunity for that.
Conservative Members have mentioned decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal. However, they are insufficient to protect many people who try to use the tribunal system but are frustrated by the ability of employers, individually or through their solicitors, to use the system to the full. On many occasions, applicants withdraw rather than go through the lengthy procedures and worries of pursuing a complicated case of unfair dismissal.

Mr. Haynes: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. I am convinced that the Minister is following every word and fully understands what my hon. Friend is saying. My hon. Friend probably does not realise that the Minister is a solicitor; he is legally qualified. He has probably represented employers from time to time. My hon. Friend has specifically referred to delay. I believe that the Minister was appointed to his post as he knows employment law from A to Z because he has been involved in it himself.

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for his perceptive comments. I apologise to the Minister; I did not realise that he was a member of the legal profession—the best paid closed shop in Britain, although that is currently under threat if one believes the squeals of some Conservative Members during Prime Minister's Question Time.
I represented some women appearing before a tribunal in Liverpool. Prior to entering the room I was reviewing the evidence that we were to put to the tribunal. In the room next to us, which had wafer-thin walls, was the barrister representing the employer. He was telling the employer that his best course of action was to apologise to the chairman of the tribunal and accept the former employee's submissions as it had already cost him £160 for an hour's consultation and would cost him a further £160 an hour if he wanted to proceed. He felt that at the end of the day the employees' submission would be successful. When I and the two women concerned and some people waiting for another case heard that, we felt rather confident on going into the tribunal some minutes later.
11 pm
There is a substantial financial kickback for those who, on occasions, wish to eke out proceedings leading up to or during the tribunal. The payments for the legal profession are substantial. The barrister to whom I referred was acting honourably in advising his client not to proceed at the cost of £160 an hour but to quit before the cost increased. But that is not always the case and some tribunals have sat for more than a day when it has been clear from the outset that, on the evidence provided, there should have been a settlement long before in favour of the former employees. Only the intransigence of the employer in trying to ensure that the tribunal did not take place or to frustrate it so that the case would not be put by the former employees has prevented such a settlement.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right that in those circumstances a former employee should not lose out financially. There should be a penalty not only for being unable to come to an amicable arrangement but for having wasted the time of ACAS and the tribunal. There


are occasions when people put up a vexatious defence to applications by former employees and in those instances they should be penalised financially.
In other legislation the Government have introduced financial penalties to prevent organisations or individuals from utilising tribunals. The most recent example is the Secretary of State for the Environment's instructions to impose severe financial penalties on developers and local authorities who continue with appeals against certain decisions.
The principle has already been acceded to by the Government on the misuse of tribunal and appeal procedures in other areas, so why, in the area of industrial relations, do the Government only grudgingly accept that such a problem exists but do nothing to protect employees against the misuse of the system by employers? Is it not probably because pressure from some employers' organisations is somewhat clouding the Minister's view about such matters? On the one hand, the Government give the impression of providing additional employees' rights, but the application of the legislation reduces employees' abilities and allows the employers free range to frustrate the ability of former employees to seek redress at industrial tribunals.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will my hon. Friend put the position in a nutshell? As I understand it, the new clause does not ask the Government to deviate from the general principle of simple interest at the point of award but says that the simple interest on the award shall be paid from the point of dismissal. That is not a major step for the Government. Will my hon. Friend suggest at an appropriate point that we are not moving away from the general principle that the Government have already accepted—that simple interest at the point of award is apparently acceptable? We are asking, in the name of natural justice, that simple interest shall be payable from the point of dismissal.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. The Government should accept that an employer who frustrates the attempts of a former employee to have a case considered by a tribunal or who extends unnecessarily the proceedings leading up to a tribunal hearing—when in the view of ACAS at the secondary stage it was a case which was worthy of consideration by a tribunal—should suffer a financial penalty. An employer in that position should face a financial penalty if, at the end of the day, the former employee succeeds with his or her case. Why do the Government consider that to be unreasonable?

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's position on this matter is not clouded or distorted by recommendations that may have been made by employers' organisations? Their position arises simply from the political prejudice of the Minister and his colleagues, who hold an "employee bad, employer good" view. No pressure is being placed on the Minister to refuse to make the change to the Bill that we recommend. His political dogma and prejudice will not allow him to accept a simple amendment such as this.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is probably right. Hon. Members who serve on a regular basis on Committees examining Bills know only too well how the Government refuse to accept amendments which would

clearly improve the legislation under consideration. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) looking at me invitingly. I assure him that I am not making an oblique reference to another measure. Clearly, we are batting on a sticky wicket in trying to argue for common sense, for a sense of justice and for fair play. We are trying to ensure that when legislation leaves this place it will work. The Government have already secured the principle of the Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Let us now try to improve it.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend will be aware that, having accepted as a reasonable principle that simple interest shall be paid from the point of dismissal, the new clause provides that if an employer can show just cause why it should not be paid, that claim will be taken into account and, if proven, accepted. The onus is on the employer to show why it should not be paid. In other words, there is no reason why the Government should not accept the new clause.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is correct, and I can give an example of the way in which legislation works in that way now at the conclusion of a tribunal hearing. I am thinking of what happens when there is an application for costs in addition to normal costs, either because the employer's application was vexatious or because the timescale involved in bringing witnesses was extended beyond what had been anticipated, making the cost of reimbursing witnesses more expensive. At that stage a request can be, and usually is, made to the chairman of the tribunal. At that point the employer can object, on two grounds: on the ground of the principle that the payment should be made and, if that falls, on the ground of the level of the reimbursement. In either case he can request that the former employee or his representative go on the witness stand under oath and establish the facts on the basis of which the application is made. Only after that procedure does the chairman of the tribunal either give a ruling or consult with his two colleagues and come back with a decision.
In every instance the rights of the employer are protected and that is precisely what the position would be in respect of any tribunal after the acceptance of this clause. The employer's rights would be protected absolutely both by the way that the clause is worded and by the way that it would be applied in due course by the tribunal.
So the position is absolutely clear. The Minister cannot argue that the clause has a major defect in the sense that it undermines the rights of the employer at the tribunal in the calculation of interest. The employer is protected throughout. The only change that this clause makes is to make it clear to those employers who wish to undermine the tribunal system that there will be a financial penalty to be met if at the end of the day their case is not accepted by the tribunal. It is as simple and as clear as that and I cannot think of any reason why the Government cannot accept this new clause willingly. Let us make the best of this bad Bill and at least improve it in some ways.
Throughout the procedure of getting to a tribunal the onus is on the employee to show that there is good cause to submit the complaint to a tribunal. The employee submits it to a tribunal in the absolute knowledge that if the application is judged vexatious or there is anything wrong with the way in which the evidence is produced to


the tribunal and if the hearing goes against him he can be liable for substantial costs. If that is the position for employees now, why should it not be the position for employers after the passing of this Bill?

Ms. Jo Richardson: We shall be voting with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on this interesting, ingenious and useful new clause. We have heard a very powerful case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is clearly an expert on this matter. We should all be grateful to him for the way in which he described the various cases.
We have all come across cases in our own experience, either as Members of Parliament, or perhaps in a former life, or perhaps in a double life if we are continuing that former life while being a Member of Parliament, as some hon. Members seem to be doing. In my own limited experience as a constituency Member—and I mean limited by being a Member of Parliament—I have found a very large number of cases over the years of people who have had to wait months and months, not knowing what is happening, when their case will come to court or when the appeal will be heard. Why should it always be the employer who has the whip hand, as it were, and who can always in some way, often ingeniously, put things off? Cases of unfair dismissal always disadvantage the aggrieved person throughout the procedure.
I find it amazing that the Minister can toss the new clause aside in so brief and dismissive a way. At the beginning of his remarks, I thought that he was going to accept it because he seemed to be sympathetic to the first point. We are, of course, glad to hear that the Government will eventually—whenever "eventually" is—lay an order. However, why should we have to wait for that? Why should we always be pushing when there is, apparently, an open door? The Government themselves have introduced the Employment Bill. If the Government are as near as the Minister says to introducing such a provision and he has an order ready to be laid, why did he not include this provision in the Bill? Why did he leave it out and why is he still leaving it out?
11.15 pm
The Minister referred to the point about interest being payable at the point of dismissal or, as he said, when the wrong occurred. Why not? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), I believe—

Mr. Haynes: Yes, my dear.

Ms. Richardson: Do not "my dear" me. My hon. Friend, in his usual style of hitting straight between the eyes, after which they all fell down laughing, put his finger on the point. He has shown that the point about the Inland Revenue—which Conservative Members, not Opposition Members, have raised—is the most telling. In my experience as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituency cases, whenever the Revenue is owed money, it wants its interest immediately from the point at which the money was owed. Sometimes people have the temerity when they are owed money as taxpayers—which frequently happens—to say, "1 want money on the interest you have been holding from me". It may have been held for some time if there has been a mistake for several years. However, I have never found a way of persuading the Inland Revenue to pay interest. That is most unfair.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: That is not true.

Ms. Richardson: I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would tell me how to persuade the Revenue.

Mr. Hanley: It is not fair to say that the Inland Revenue does not pay interest on overdue tax because it does. As a professional chartered accountant, my experience is that it has always been most fair. I have no brief to defend the Inland Revenue on this matter. I am merely trying to explain my experience.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman is a chartered accountant. The majority of my constituents do not have chartered accountants to do their accounts. [Interruption.] Hold on a moment. They simply know that they are owed money. At some stage, they are told by the Revenue that a mistake has been discovered and that they are owed some money. Perhaps I should have come to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) professionally. I have had several cases over the years in which I have written to the Revenue and have said that a woman or man has been owed money for two or three years. I have asked why the interest cannot be paid, but I have never won a case yet.

Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend press the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on this issue? I have never heard of an instance in which the Inland Revenue has paid interest on moneys that have been paid by a taxpayer and which it is to refund. I hope that my hon. Friend will press the hon. Gentleman to give one instance in which the Inland Revenue has done so.

Ms. Richardson: I should be glad if the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes would do that.

Mr. Hanley: Not only is interest payable in the circumstances that have been described; it is even tax free.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman should conduct a seminar, in his capacity as a chartered accountant, to tell Members of Parliament how to tackle the Revenue on behalf of their constituents. I have certainly never come across such a case.

Mr. Hawkins: It is simple. One merely appeals against an assessment and if one wins the appeal, interest will be awarded against the Inland Revenue.
It is a side issue whether the Revenue pays, as well as receives, interest. The important point is that it is not normal in legislation for interest to be paid from the date of the event—from the date on which it is owing. I should love someone to comment on what Mr. Justice Popplewell said. The injustice to which I believe he was referring was not the payment of interest from the date of the court case; it was the payment of interest in the case where employers purposely delayed the case, sometimes for three years, and so deprived the person who should have received money of the interest that he could easily have earned in a building society. That is the injustice which we have been asked to put right but which, I am sad to say, we do not put right in the Bill.

Ms. Richardson: To return to the Inland Revenue point, perhaps we are talking about two different angles. The hon. Members for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) and for Richmond and Barnes appear to be thinking of different circumstances. Suppose that a person claims that he or she


has been overpaying tax, engages an accountant—or anyway knows how to proceed—and goes to appeal. The outcome of that appeal may be a decision that interest is payable. I can envisage that happening. But I am thinking about a different kind of case, in which the Revenue has written to someone saying, "Dear Sir"—it is never "Dear Sir or Madam"—"We have found that we have made a mistake. We owe you £200, which we took from you wrongly in 1978." In that case, it is not a question of going to appeal; the Revenue has admitted its mistake. But even if one writes to the Revenue and says, "You owe that person interest," the person never gets the interest out of the Revenue. I beg the hon. Members for High Peak and for Richmond and Barnes to think about that point. We are not talking about the professional cases in which the taxpayer goes to appeal. That is different, I agree.

Mr. Rogers: That is an award.

Ms. Richardson: Yes, it is an award.
Let me return to the main point, as I want to leave time for the Member for Orkney and Shetland to reply—

Mr. McCartney: Conservative Members may not concede the point about the Inland Revenue but we should draw the Minister's attention to the booklet issued by the Department of Employment about industrial tribunal procedures, page 11 of which deals with the award of costs or expenses. It advises employees about the awards of costs and expenses against them and says:
an award of costs may follow a warning given at a pre-hearing assessment.
I referred to that in my remarks. It continues:
This may apply even if the application is withdrawn and the case does not go on to a hearing.
That clearly states that an employee can have costs awarded against him backdated to the date on which the application was made. The calculation could only be made from that date. The award of costs could only be for the period from the date on which the application was made to the date on which it was withdrawn. The point is already conceded in respect of employees in the Department's own booklet, yet the Government are still not prepared to meet the request in respect of employers.

Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point, and I hope that the Minister will look again at the booklet, in which the position is simply stated. I hope that the Minister will think again. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has made a good and honest attempt, and introduced a very good debate, in trying to persuade the Department of the justice of what he and we believe.
I hope that the House will support new clause 19. If it is in some way defective, the Minister can have it redrafted and then reintroduce it on another occasion. It is not good enough for him simply to say that the first part of the new clause is not necessary because, at some future date, he will lay an order and with little explanation to say that the second part is not acceptable.

Mr. Wallace: This has been a somewhat longer debate than I had anticipated, but, as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, it has been a good debate. I welcome the Opposition's support for the new clause. It is regrettable that the Minister's response was so brief and

so dismissive. I welcome his announcement that the long-awaited regulations will be tabled in the not-too-distant future. However, I am sure that he would accept that that goes only a small way towards what the new clause seeks to achieve.
A fair point was made about why the position should be any different between the Inland Revenue charging interest and an employee charging interest when the payment has been delayed for some considerable time and he has, therefore, lost the opportunity of gaining interest on that capital. Part of the purpose of the new clause is to rectify that position. If someone has pursued a claim for redundancy through an industrial tribunal and been given a lump sum award at that time, he could have invested it and gained interest. Why should he be denied interest on that money which, over some years—or even one year with the current rate of inflation under this Government—has been devalued? I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that there should be some penalty. Interest is not a penalty; it is a fair sum.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman is on the right track. The date of that award is neither significant nor pertinent because the award itself relates to dismissal. Interest on the award should therefore be payable from the date of dismissal.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not trained in English law, but Professor David Walker, an eminent professor of Scots law, said in the second edition of his work on delict:
Accordingly the earliest date from which interest may be ordered to run is the date when the right of action arose.
The word "may" makes it discretionary and what the new clause proposes is discretionary.
This is the United Kingdom Parliament, and if the Minister feels uneasy because the new clause does not coincide with what he knows to be English law, I ask him to think again because it may well coincide with what Professor Walker says is possible under Scots law. It is not intended in any way to be a penalty; it is intended to ensure justice and fairness. In the absence of any assurance that that point is taken on board by the Government, we will press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Nicholls: Even in this relatively short debate a number of important points have been raised to which I wish to respond. It is obvious to me, if not to every hon. Member in the Chamber, that the Opposition have been pushing at an open door. The principle of interest being payable on awards made by industrial tribunals was conceded in the 1982 Act, which amended the 1978 Act. It has now been conceded in practice because the Government are consulting about a scheme for the payment of interest.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) posed the perfectly fair question, why bother to do it that way when an appropriate Bill is going through Parliament? We believe that we have something rather better than a Bill —a statute with an order-making power. We have gone out to consultation and said that we will introduce a scheme later this year. So the principle was conceded as long ago as 1978 and the practice has now been conceded as well.
11.30 pm
The only point of difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is whether such a scheme should provide for the payment of interest as from the date of judgment or whether it should be from the date of wrongdoing. I heard what my hon. Friends said about the Inland Revenue. That is not an appropriate analogy. Insofar as it was appropriate, it was an expert opinion from chartered accountants. It was advice which on this occasion was free. Free advice from chartered accountants is a treasure much to be prized. My hon. Friend was wrong about interest being payable.
By far the better example was the reference to court cases by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The point about court cases is that the general rule is that interest runs from the time of judgment. In exceptional circumstances it can run from the time of wrongdoing, but in practice that happens only in exceptional circumstances because inevitably it can take a considerable time to get the hearing to court.
A great deal of play has been made of the Caledonian Mining case and the remarks of Mr. Justice Popplewell. One dislikes to blur an interesting debate by referring to facts, but the point about that case is that reference was made in the judgment to the plaintiffs having been kept out of their money for three years. That was the time it took from the case being heard at first instance until it was disposed of on appeal. It took only a few months to get the case to the tribunal. So the blot on justice that has been referred to time and time again relates not to the time in tribunals where cases are heard relatively quickly but to the date of judgment. That is the usual position. That is what applies in courts of law. That is why I say in this case that the Opposition are pushing at an open door.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Mr. Nicholls: I will give the hon. Gentleman the last chance.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has conceded that it is more appropriate to look to courts but he said that there were exceptional circumstances where interest would be allowed from a date preceding the date of judgment. The new clause allows discretion. It is not mandatory. I accept that the presumption is in favour of it. I would see it as being very much second best, but would the Minister be more disposed towards the new clause if the presumption was reversed and the person had to argue for it? That would be better than what the Minister proposes, although it would not go as far as I would wish. Is the Minister prepared to consider that?

Mr. Nicholls: Obviously the hon. Gentleman is finally accepting that there is more force in what I said—

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right and proper for the Minister, during a debate of this kind, to say to an hon. Member that he will give him the last chance? I am asking for a ruling from the Chair. The way the Minister is carrying on is shocking, and 1 think you ought to tell him so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order from the Minister.

Mr. Nicholls: As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland well knows, we are dealing with a structure of tribunals where a case can be heard quickly, as opposed to

a court where it can take a considerable time. That is the significant difference, and that is why I cannot go all the way with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rogers: I am participating in the debate at this stage because of the remark by the Minister about giving the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) the last chance to speak. It is not the Minister who determines the length of debate.
The only reason the Government are not prepared to accept the new clause seems to be because of their political prejudice and deep-seated dogma on industrial relations. The whole basis of their presentation of the Bill is that they want to argue employer, good—employee, bad. If any hon. Member makes a constructive suggestion that would improve the Bill, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland did, we see immediately the hackles of prejudice and dogma rise on the backs of Ministers.
It does not matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) or the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have put forward their case in a proper fashion. The Opposition's attitude to the debate is, in a sense, cynical, because we know that the Minister will not accept any proposition that is reasonably based.
When the Minister puts forward instances to justify the case, he does it without a sense of common justice and fair play. The litigants whom we are thinking about in this situation are ordinary people, who often receive wages, and who are involved in disputes, or, perhaps, are made redundant because of circumstances that are beyond their control. They are suddenly confronted with their employers being difficult and do not want—to use an expression that we use in the valleys—to give them their fair due for their legitimate rights.
Let us suppose that a person is entitled to £2,000 for a period of service of employment and, perhaps, an even longer period of future unemployment. If the employer is difficult, he can drag the matter out, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and by the time —at the Government's present rate of inflation—that £2,000 is paid, under the proposals in the Bill it could be worth considerably less. On the basis of common justice and fair play, it should be paid at the time that the person is due the money. It is not beyond an employer who is devious, or even just cheap—the sort of person who supports the Conservative party—to delay, knowing that at the end of the day the amount of money that he will pay out will be worth much less than at the time when it should have been paid.
The Government are wrong in not accepting this reasonable new clause. I know that if we argued right through the night we would not convince this Minister —the Minister who during the past year stood at the Dispatch Box and suggested that women should work in the coal mines, which was something that most people thought had gone out in the last century. A Minister who can justify that proposition could justify anything. One thing that I would not look for from this Minister is—

Mr. McCartney: On the question of compensation and its fairness, even when compensation must be paid, for example, when an employer refuses to make a reinstatement at the end of a tribunal—when an employee has sought reinstatement and not a financial contribution—in the calculation of the compensation for the failure to reinstate, there is a statutory requirement on the employee


to prove that within the period leading up to the tribunal he has sought gainful employment. If that is not proven, the compensation can be reduced accordingly. Therefore, at all stages in the procedure there is an obligation on the employee that will determine the final amount of compensation. If that is the case for the employee, this minimal requirement on the employer should be accepted by the Minister.

Mr. Rogers: Yes, but my hon. Friend should not be surprised by the ethic put forward by the Government. It underlies the Government's attitude. They try to project that they are in support of individuals, that they protect individuals and that they want to look after individuals, but, of course, that is only applicable if the individual can buy into the legal system—if he can afford the legal system. For so many individuals the only way that they can get into the legal system is by forming associations or affiliations, such as trade unions. However, the Government have attacked trade unions and their ability to defend individuals. It is a concerted political attack based on their prejudices and political dogmas.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the Government's political dogma. Perhaps they do not want interest to be paid from the date of dismissal because of the Chancellor's high interest rate policy and the damage that will be done to employers who lose a case.

Mr. Rogers: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are concerned with, for example, the right of individuals in Poland to form themselves into a trade union. They mouth hypocritical statements about the rights of trade unions and blows for democracy. At the same time, they use the power of the state over individuals who want to exercise their trade union rights in this country.
The Government's pathological hatred of trade unions goes back to the Heath Government. We know its basis. I do not expect any common justice from the Government or the Minister. The time for reasonable arguments and debate in the Chamber has gone. On many issues, the Government say no, no, no. They decide where they want to go. The way in which the Government are trying to destroy the Health Service is just another symptom of their dogma. We are seeing in the Government's intransigence and negativeness their political prejudice and dogma. There has never been a more dogma-ridden Government in this century. I hope that we will press the motion to a vote.

Mr. Wallace: Yes.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member has agreed. Unless one of my colleagues speaks in the debate, the Division will come fairly soon.

Mr. Leadbitter: I notice that, in responding to the debate, the Minister appeared to have a brief before him. He appeared to present to the House something on which his mind was already made up. That is out of character for him.

Mr. Rogers: No.

Mr. Leadbitter: It is out of character because we are not asking a great deal in new clause 19. We are saying that the general principle has been accepted. We are talking only about the time scale.
The Minister referred to a state of wrongdoing. Once the tribunal makes a declaration in favour of an applicant —in this case, the employee—that state of wrongdoing is removed. The question is whether in a state of equity the person who has been given the award should have simple interest from the date of judgment or from the date of dismissal. The state of wrongdoing has been removed. Therefore, the new clause gives the Minister another point in his favour. If an employer can show just cause why interest shall not be paid from the date of dismissal, the tribunal will uphold his decision.
Why are the Government intervening in a democratic process? In effect, the tribunal says to the employer, "Your state of wrongdoing vis-a-vis the employee has been removed". It may take months for an employee to get his case before the tribunal, through no fault of his, so why cannot the award be bolstered by a state of equity, natural justice—whatever one calls it—and an innocent employee given simple interest from the date of dismissal?

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend refer to paragraph 6(b) of the new clause which says that interest shall not be awarded before
in the case of a redundancy payment, the relevant date defined by section 90 of this Act;"?
It raises a curious anomaly in the Minister's case. If a redundancy took place, redundancy payments would be paid from the date of the redundancy, but if an appeal were made to a tribunal which decided that the redundancy was not a redundancy but an unfair dismissal, unless the new clause was accepted, the award would not start from the date of the redundancy, as a redundancy notice would require under the Employment Bill, but from the date of the tribunal. It would be completely wrong if, having proved at a tribunal that a redundancy did not exist, compensation was awarded only from the date of the tribunal, not the redundancy.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend is correct. About a year ago an employee found himself in a difficulty, not of his own making, but due to a personality conflict between him and his chief officer. The young man went to a tribunal and was exonerated. However, when he returned to the local authority, which I shall not name because it would be imprudent to do so, it remained adamant and did not provide a response to the tribunal's decision.
Ordinary working people are not lawyers, but depend entirely upon their occupation. Therefore, they go to a tribunal in a state of complete innocence. They do not know what is going to happen. But those on the tribunal who professionally consider a person's predicament and decide to award in his or her favour are saying that he or she has been relieved of a state of wrongdoing. If the process has taken several months, it seems, in equity, that the award is intended to refer to the date of dismissal, not of the award.
I do not wish to take up too much time tonight, and the Minister may be unable to respond, but I wish to make the point that the Minister had a brief. I understand that because I have been here long enough. I am not recriminating the Minister; that is the last thing that I want


to do. However, I would like to feel that the Minister will return to his Department and discuss the mood of the House with the Secretary of State for Employment.
On both sides of the House there is substance in the idea that an ordinary working person, having been exonerated by an award, could reasonably expect the award and the simple interest to come from the date of dismissal.

Mr. Rogers: I notice that when my hon. Friend appeals to the better nature of the Minister and Conservative Members, as he has in his speech, all he had by way of response was a rather cynical grin. I do not wish to make a personal statement against my hon. Friend, but I wish that he would not accord to Conservative Members virtues that do not belong to them. To suggest that they are reasonable people who will accept a reasonable case is not valid. They are motivated by political dogma and prejudice, and all the reasonable arguments that may be advanced fall on deaf ears.

Mr. Leadbitter: I understand my hon. Friend's view, but we are dealing with a limited number of cases, although it may vary according to the time of year. We are dealing with ordinary working people. I feel that I know the House of Commons. If the Minister is not in a position to give an undertaking now, I hope that he will understand the temper of the House. We are asking for something very small, although the principle is very important. If an hon. Member on either side of the House was placed in the position of an employee going before a tribunal and gained an award, would he find it difficult to understand that that award should apply from the date of dismissal and not from the date of the tribunal's judgment?
I hope that the Minister will discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. It is not important to him as a Minister, or to me, or to any hon. Member on either side of the House; we occupy favoured positions as elected Members of the House of Commons, and we are very well off. But we are talking about people who may be very poor indeed, and who need the benefit of our prudence.

Mr. Clelland: My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has appealed to the Minister to look to the justice of the case being put forward. I feel, however, that here we are dealing not with justice but with attitudes. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is quite right in that repect.
We may speak of the simple justice of giving someone interest on money that he may have been owed for a considerable time—for such cases are often delayed in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). We are discussing not only the payment of interest but the payment of the compensation itself, and often such compensation is inadequate, not only in terms of meeting the wrongdoing often involved in unfair dismissal or the denial of redundancy payments, but in terms of meeting the lost earnings that may have resulted.
In Committee, I drew the Minister's attention to a case on record in which an industrial tribunal found that an applicant had been unfairly dismissed. Winding up the case, the chairman said that had it not been for the legal maximum he would have been entitled to far more compensation, and that the tribunal would have wished to give him far more. Although such remarks were made by people who had been through the facts of the case, the

Minister was not willing to give way to that argument, and it is even less likely that he will give way to the argument being put tonight.

Mr. Rogers: I have been arguing on the basis that the Minister will not give way to any argument, because of his prejudices and dogma. One reason why he is not giving way on this issue may be what could loosely be termed political childishness. When he gave the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) what he thought was his "last chance" to speak—some last chance that was—the Minister said that he had already conceded the point in principle, and that the Government were prepared to bring in the measure in an order at a later stage. Before my hon. Friend sits down, perhaps he will reflect on the motives behind the Government's attitude.

Mr. Clelland: Part of the problem is that when perfectly reasonable arguments are made by the Opposition in Committee or in the House, the Minister sees it as his job not to listen to them, and then to say, "That sounds all right to me. We may not agree with the wording, but we shall devise something that will better fit the Bill," but rather he takes a macho view and considers that his task is to defeat the Opposition rather than to produce reasonable legislation.
The attitude to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda drew attention was amply displayed when we debated that part of the Bill dealing with employment rights.

Mr. McCartney: Perhaps my hon. Friend will probe the Minister as to his attitude towards the Employment Act 1982—the Tebbit Act—under which retrospective payments amounting to £2 million were made to 400 people who alleged unfair dismissal because of their refusal to join a trade union, when their cases had already been dismissed at tribunal hearings. Nevertheless, sections 1 and 2 of that Act enabled them retrospectively to enjoy huge awards.

Mr. Clelland: The Government's prejudices are well known, and my hon. Friend draws attention to a particular case that illustrates them. The Government have shown on many occasions that they can twist the law to favour their particular prejudices, while denying justice to those entitled to it.
In Committee, we suggested that from day one of their employment, people should be entitled to the full range of employment rights. The Minister's argument against that proposal was that employees would use those rights against their employers. That revealed that the view of the Minister and of the Government is that such rights serve not to protect employees against their employers but as weapons for employees to use against their employers. That reveals a great deal about the Minister's psychology when it comes to industrial relations, and says much about why he will not accept the justice for which the proposed new clause provides.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 154.

Division No. 224]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Battle, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Beith, A. J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bell, Stuart


Barron, Kevin
Blunkett, David






Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Buckley, George J.
Meacher, Michael


Clay, Bob
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michael, Alun


Crowther, Stan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cryer, Bob
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Prescott, John


Fearn, Ronald
Redmond, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Richardson, Jo


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fraser, John
Salmond, Alex


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Haynes, Frank
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Doug
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Illsley, Eric
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Kennedy, Charles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Leadbitter, Ted



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


McCartney, Ian
Mr. James Wallace.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Amos, Alan
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arbuthnot, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Ashby, David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Aspinwall, Jack
Harris, David


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Heddle, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hind, Kenneth


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bottomley, Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Irvine, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jack, Michael


Bright, Graham
Jackson, Robert


Butterfill, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carttiss, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knowles, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lee, John (Pendle)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lightbown, David


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Favell, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Forth, Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Maude, Hon Francis


French, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Miller, Sir Hal


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Iain


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, Sir David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hague, William
Neubert, Michael





Nicholls, Patrick
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thorne, Neil


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Watts, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Stevens, Lewis
and


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

REPEAL OR MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS REQUIRING DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Lee: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 23, at end insert—
'(4A) In section 17 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 (fencing of exposed parts of machinery)—

(a) subsection (3),
(b) in subsection (4), the words from ", except when any" onwards, and
(c) subsection (5),

shall cease to have effect.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 13.

Mr. Lee: These amendments to schedules 3 and 7 and clause 7 deal with a matter that is virtually a technicality, but they have been tabled to ensure that safety standards remain at the present high level. If the amendments are not passed, there is a theoretical possibility that young people and adults may be at risk from dangerous moving parts of certain kinds of machinery.
At the moment dangerous machinery must be fenced and people may not clean or maintain it while it is moving, with one exception, that if examination, lubrication or adjustment are "immediately necessary" while the machinery is in motion, regulations can be made to allow this. If they are made, they must specify that only persons over 18 can carry out this work—section 17(5). But such regulations have never been made. So at present the law is that no one cleans or maintains dangerous machinery while it is moving.
Since the regulations envisaged in the original Act, if they had been made, would have had to specify that the maintenance could have been done only by persons over 18, the provision allowing them was caught by our general principle that unused legislation curbing the work


activities of under-18-year-olds should be repealed; and we have taken the advice of the Health and Safety Commission and repealed it.
But the result is that while regulations are no longer allowed to be made to specify that over-18-year-olds may carry out such work if it is immediately necessary, the work can, by virtue of section 17(3) and part of section 17(4), be done if, in the same way, it is immediately necessary, by anyone, without let or hindrance.
To ensure that our Bill maintains safety as well as removing this unused legislation, we also need to repeal the section of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 which allows examination, lubrication or adjustment to be carried out on moving machinery if it is immediately necessary. If we did not, employers could ask persons of any age to maintain dangerous machinery while it is moving, with no precautionary regulations needing to be prescribed first.
There has never been a call for such regulations to be introduced. In other words, the kind of machinery that we are talking about does not need to be in motion for those maintenance purposes.
The effect of our amendments is that the requirement to fence these machines safely will now be an absolute requirement, thus maintaining if not improving safety standards. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There has been an amazing transformation in the Government, for they are now concerned with safety. They can claim, for the first time, to be showing some compassion. So far we have had to deal with a host of matters concerning young people, women in the pits and other issues on which the Government have refused to make any concessions. That is why I am suspicious about this series of Government amendments.
Why are they amending clause 7 in this way? After all, clause 8 is concerned with young people, and one would have thought that that, rather than clause 7, should be amended. Or perhaps we need an entirely new clause to deal with the safety aspects to which the amendment refers. Clause 7 is entitled:
Repeal or modification of provisions requiring different treatment of different categories of employees.
It would be more correct to call it the clause which forces women to work underground in coal mines. That being so, we must ask whether the amendment is appropriate to that clause, subsection (1) of which amends the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 to stop winding and rope haulage and conveyors from being restricted to male usage only. Subsection (2) of the clause amends the same Act to allow women and young persons to do heavy underground work. Subsection (3) provides for women working underground to work significant numbers of hours and to work whole shifts involving overtime. Subsection (4) amends the Factories Act 1961 to allow women and young persons to clean machinery, especially underground machinery, in pits. Subsection (5) allows much of the same underground nightmare for women to be enforced in the schedules to the Bill.
Why are we now offered an amendment to such a clause by way of altering the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963? There are not many offices, shops or railway premises down the pits, although there are man-riders, which presumably in future will he called man and

woman-riders or perhaps person-riders. There are also coal trucks which are sent along rails to enable the onsetter to send coal up to the surface. But they have more similarity with railways than with railway premises, shops and offices.
Amendment No. 2 is modest, as the Minister said, in that it excludes two and a half sections of section 17 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, presumably on the ground that they cover superfluous areas in terms of protection that at present exist for those guarding machines. Section 17(1), which will remain, says:
Every dangerous part of any machinery used as, or forming, part of the equipment of premises to which this Act applies shall be securely fenced unless"—
and then we have the get-out bit—
it is in such a position or of such construction as to be as safe to every person working in the premises as it would be if securely fenced.
I am sure that employers could drive a horse and cart through both provisions. Why is it necessary to remove the provisions in subsection (3), part of subsection (4) and subsection (5), because employers will be able to carry on doing what they have been doing with the legislation as it stands at the moment? The removal of those subsections makes little difference. On the surface it improves the former Act but there is really little advantage.
Section 17(5) of the 1963 Act, which is to be removed, is a key element for the Government's purpose. It refers to
such persons who have attained the age of eighteen".
There is no mention of underground coal mines, women in the pit or the primitive working conditions in a mine, including the absence of lavatory facilities, which we discussed at great length in Committee, and the other problems that exist in connection with women working in a pit, unless there is a vast improvement in conditions for everybody working in a pit.
Government amendment No. 2 has more to do with clause 8 of the Bill because that is concerned with the removal of restrictions relating to the employment of young persons. Although young persons are normally in this legislation referred to as persons aged 16 to 18, at least those over 18 are a bit nearer to this clause than they are to the clause that deals with women in the pit. It would be more appropriate with regard to the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963, which covers wider areas than the pit, to include it in a clause such as that.
The paradox is that any future Government scheme to protect women by removing them from the primitive conditions in a pit would have to alter all the subsections of clause 7 except the provision that is in front of us at the moment. That indicates to me that this provision is irrelevant to the clause that we are discussing. Does it not show that the amendment is out of place here? Perhaps the Government should go back to the drawing board. They will find drawing boards in offices, shops and railway premises but not in pits—unless they are used as shovels in the pit as part of the toilet facilities.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically churlish about an amendment that initially he supported in broad terms.
To answer his technical questions, the reason we are altering clause 7 and not clause 8 is that the amendment essentially concerns treating young people and adults the same rather than simply removing a restriction on young


people. The Government amendment makes doubly sure that young people will not be at risk from maintaining moving machinery.
We are supported in our approach by the Health and Safety Commission, which the Opposition in Committee continually quoted at us. The commission agrees that section 17(5) should be repealed. Its advice is that the provision is "obsolete" and that
if needed regulations can be made under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The amendments that we are now debating maintain a high safety standard.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 5.

Division No. 225]
[12.24 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Kennedy, Charles


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Alton, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Amos, Alan
Kirkwood, Archy


Arbuthnot, James
Knapman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Ashby, David
Knowles, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Knox, David


Batiste, Spencer
Lee, John (Pendle)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lightbown, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lilley, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Livsey, Richard


Bottomley, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bright, Graham
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Malins, Humfrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chapman, Sydney
Maude, Hon Francis


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Devlin, Tim
Miller, Sir Hal


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Sir David


Fallen, Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Favell, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Neubert, Michael


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Freeman, Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


French, Douglas
Norris, Steve


Gill, Christopher
Paice, James


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Redwood, John


Hague, William
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shersby, Michael


Heddle, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hind, Kenneth
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stevens, Lewis


Howells, Geraint
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sumberg, David


Irvine, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Jack, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





Thorne, Neil
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Thurnham, Peter
Watts, John


Trippier, David
Wells, Bowen


Trotter, Neville
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. David Maclean and


Ward, John
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)



Cryer, Bob
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Kevin Barron and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Allan Rogers.


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10

TRADE UNION DUTIES FOR WHICH TIME OFF MUST BE ALLOWED BY EMPLOYER

Mr. Nicholls: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 9, line 10, after 'out', insert `(i)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 to 34.

Mr. Nicholls: Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 are purely technical and in no way change the underlying purpose of the clause. That said, they fall into two distinct categories. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 remedy a defect in the drafting of section 32 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The need to put forward the amendments arises out of a recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Adlington v. British Bakeries (Northern) Limited. The case was decided during the Committee stage and was referred to by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise).
The purpose of clause 10 is to remove the anomoly in section 27 of the 1978 Act, which was revealed in the 1982 Court of Appeal case of Beal and Others v Beecham. The amendments seek not to change the purpose of the clause, but to amend the law to remove that anomaly. The clause does not alter the law in any other respect.

Mr. Strang: The Minister will recall our discussions in Committee on a clause to which we take great exception. I am not wholly convinced that the amendments are entirely technical and I wish to probe the matter a little further, especially on amendment No. 31.
The issue has a long history going back to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which was introduced by the Labour Government. Section 27 of that Act clearly laid down the circumstances under which an employee could have paid time off for legitimate trade union activities. There was some opposition to that legislation from the Conservative party. I say "some" because in those days the Tories' extreme attitude towards the trade union movement was not fully manifest.
During those debates a number of hon. Members sought to limit the circumstances under which people could have paid time off. The position is clear because an ACAS code of practice, which was envisaged in the Act, defines the duties for which trade union officials can have paid time off. They include:

"(a) collective bargaining with the appropriate level of management;


(b) informing constituents about negotiations or consultations with management;
(c) meetings with other lay officials or with full-time union officers on matters which are concerned with industrial relations between his or her employer and any associated employer and their employees;
(d) interviews with and on behalf of constituents on grievance and discipline matters concerning them and their employer;
(e) appearing on behalf of constituents before an outside official body, such as an industrial tribunal, which is dealing with an industrial relations matter concerning the employer; and
(f) explanations to new employees whom he or she will represent of the role of the union in the workplace industrial relations structure."

It is our view that the ACAS code of practice, amplified by various court cases, lays down a reasonable legislative framework determining when a trade unionist should be entitled to time off paid for by his employer. We take exception to the clause because it seeks to change all that. It seeks to remove the applicability of the ACAS code of practice and to insert a new definition of the circumstances in which a trade union official would be entitled to time off, namely, the definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.
It is symptomatic of the Government's whole approach to these matters that the definition which is to be operative is the definition of a trade dispute. Time and time again we have to remind Government Members that, contrary to the impression that they and the organs of the press that support them give, full-time trade union officials spend 95 to 99 per cent. of their time not in seeking to encourage people to withdraw their labour but in seeking to avoid disputes and secure agreements. Often their intervention has the effect of preventing people from coming out on strike or taking industrial action.
The vast bulk of their time is spent on helping the process of industrial relations which means helping to avoid disputes and breakdowns in relations between management and workers. Generally it is only a small fraction of their time that is involved in strikes and other forms of industrial action. It is sad that the Government should seek to revert to the definition of a trade dispute to lay down the conditions that have to be fulfilled for a worker to have paid time off for trade union activities.
It was made clear in Committee how restrictive the provision will be. For example, under present legislation, if a national trade union such as the Amalgamated Engineering Union organised a conference on the car industry, provided the conference was about industrial relations and other aspects of the industry, it could reasonably expect that all its members who were active in the car industry, where there was an agreement between the AEU and the company, would be entitled to paid time off to attend the conference. So it would not matter whether the AEU convenor was based at the Rover Cowley plant or at the Nissan Washington plant; the same criteria would apply. In the example that I have given the convenor would be entitled to paid time off.
What the legislation does is alter that position and it creates a situation where, whether the trade union convenor will have paid time off will depend on the actual collective agreement that is in force between the trade union and the employer at the particular plant or company in question. Therefore, I believe it to be the case that, if there is a rather restrictive agreement between Nissan and the AEU, one could find that a convenor at the Nissan

plant would not be entitled to paid time off, but a convenor at the Rover plant, where there is a more traditional type of agreement, would be. That was one of the points that came out in Committee.
12.45 am
One of the most incredible justifications for that change in the legislation was to give employers greater certainty. The implication was that there was a certain ambiguity in the current legislation as to when a trade unionist was entitled to paid time off. However, it does the very opposite, as my example illustrates. Instead of there being a uniformity across the board, as applies at present and is basically laid down by the ACAS code of practice to which I have referred, we shall be moving into a situation where the entitlement to paid time off will vary, not according to the nature of the event—for example, a conference or training school—that the trade union official wants to attend, but according to the nature of the collective agreement between the employer and the trade unionist.
It must be pointed out that the Government completely failed to sustain their case that that would lead to a position of greater clarity and predictability for employers in relation to paid time off for trade unionists. It must further be said that the first indication that we received of the Government's intention in that area goes way back to the White Paper, "Building Businesses…not Barriers". That sought to imply that that requirement, which goes back to the Employment Protection Act 1975, was something of a burden on employers. That being so, Ministers have still not made the slightest attempt to describe that burden on or cost to employers. There is no suggestion of any quantification of those.
No one has sought to indicate what the average financial cost or burden in any year is to any particular employer, whether large or small. Indeed, I do not believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House really believes that the entitlement to paid time off by trade union officials, as it operates in this country at present, is in any way a disadvantage or some sort of burden to employers, which makes our firms less competitive than those elsewhere.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the exact reverse would he the truth? If the arrangement for paid time off is left to individual collective agreements between a trade union branch and an employer, it will surely lead to accusations of disparities between agreements—as to employers giving time off or not, as the case may be, to go to the sort of conference mentioned by my hon. Friend—which will in turn lead to more pressure for negotiations to allow time off to reach parity with other sections of the industry. That in itself could lead to an industrial dispute about the very legislation that the Government are proposing to introduce. A national agreement laid down and applying, through statute and national convention, across the board is obviously a way of avoiding disputes between sections of an industry, whereas the Government's proposals are a recipe for conflict.

Mr. Strang: I do not have the slightest doubt that the situation will develop in that way. Codes of practice and case law make people's position clear. It is not clear in this measure. There will be opposition by employees when they find that they are no longer entitled to paid time off.
Paid time off will be determined by collective agreement, but there are collective agreements and collective agreements. Some, such as the one between the trade unions and the Ford Motor company, are almost comparable to legislation, so well-honed are they. They are clear-cut and precise. But many other collective agreements fall a long way short of that and whether there is time off to undertake a particular activity is open to interpretation.
Disagreement and disharmony will be promoted when a trade union has one interpretation of a collective agreement and the employer has another. We can rest assured that the employer will interpret it as meaning that the official is not entitled to paid time off while the trade union will take the opposite view. The union's rational response will be to bring pressure to bear on the employer to achieve that paid time off. Notwithstanding what is included in the collective agreement, it is always possible to negotiate a supplementary agreement providing specificaly for paid time off for a particular purpose. There will be a clear incentive for workers to bring pressure to bear on employers—perhaps even embarking upon industrial action—to negotiate a supplementary agreement to give paid time off to attend the kind of conference that I have mentioned.
Surely most reasonable people recognise that it is in industry's interests that managers and trade union officials are well educated. Some trade union officials are involved in just certain matters—for example, national pay negotiations—but even people without experience in the workplace know that shop stewards play a pivotal role. Consequently, it must be in the interests of large, complex operations that those people have an opportunity to be as well-educated and well-informed as possible. Of course they should be well-informed about industrial relations and negotiating procedures, but they should also have the widest opportunity to educate themselves about their industry and to widen their horizons.
In Committee, I asked whether a trade union convenor would be entitled to paid time off to attend a conference on the implications for his industry of the single European market in 1992. We did not get an answer. It is clear that often convenors will not be entitled to paid time off. Of course, it will be possible to negotiate an agreement to achieve that, but the Government are backward in the way in which they have enacted legislation to restrict the scope for working people to attend courses and broaden their education.
No one seriously suggests that British industry gravely under-performs, that our output has been greatly reduced or that our productivity has been adversely affected because too many trade unionists have been getting paid time off to attend various courses—far from it. I suspect that not only Opposition Members but many managers and employers would argue that industry would operate more efficiently if more active trade unionists had more opportunities to participate in conferences on education and so on. That would broaden their understanding and enable them to become more knowledgeable not only about industrial relations and negotiating procedures but the nature of their industry's market.
The measure has not been justified by the Government. Certainly, as I have indicated, the two main arguments put

forward by the Government, have not been substantiated. They have not produced any evidence to show that the current requirement is a burden to industry. It is nonsense to argue, as they have done, that the changes will bring greater certainty.
We are talking about a large number of people and a range of courses. In 1989, 60,000 shop stewards and trade union representatives will go on training courses arranged by their union or the Trades Union Congress. The trade unions and the TUC spend £6·5 million on training, of which 25 per cent. is grant-aided by the Government.
I am not suggesting that the new legislation will mean that participants on every course organised by the TUC or the unions will not be entitled to paid time off. That does not apply to health and safety representatives: they are governed by separate regulations and there is no restriction on their entitlement to paid time off for trade union activities.
A large number of courses are attended by thousands of trade unionists every year. In the main they are attended on the basis of paid time off. In those circumstances it is wholly reprehensible for the Government to enact a measure which will limit the opportunity for some, not all, trade unionists, to participate in the courses.
The Minister argued that the amendments were technical. I would appreciate greater clarification of that argument. Amendment No. 31 deals with a paragraph that is to be substituted in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The words to be removed are:
any matters specified in section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
and the words to be inserted are:
negotiations with the employer that are related to or connected with any matters which fall within
section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
That is not technical in the way that the word is normally used in the context of amendments. It changes the Bill so that the courts will interpret it differently from the way in which they would if it remained unamended.
I seek Government guidance on this matter because when I was studying it I was not sure whether the change would marginally improve the position for the trade unions and us. I thought that the phrase
related to or connected with
went wider than the wording
any matter specified in section 29(1)".
If my view was correct, it would mean that that was not a major change but would slightly improve the position. I say "slightly" because such a change would be only marginal and would in no way mitigate the enormity of the amendment, which—as we explained at some length in Committee—we consider an absolute outrage. It cannot be justified on the ground that, as the Government claim, it will help business. It is clear from the inadequacy of the Government's attempts to justify the amendment that it is born out of their continuing vendetta against the trade union movement.
1 am
The amendment is intended to undermine and weaken the trade unions. It is the product of an era when the Government believed that there were votes to be had from portraying the unions as the opponents—the enemies—of real progress. I am not sure whether they still believe that votes can be won on that ticket; I suspect that their own polls will tell them that such votes are becoming fewer and


fewer, and that the unions are more popular now than they have been for decades. The idea that they are somehow responsible for the major problems facing the nation—inflation, mass unemployment and a huge balance of payments gap—is nonsense.
I would like to think that, whatever the Government's political motivation, the extent to which they can be encouraged to implement vindictive legislation on the basis that it will win votes is being reduced. This, however, is another element in the saga of legislation aimed at attacking the legitimate trade union movement. We got another whiff of the Government's attitude at the weekend, when the Secretary of State made some reference to introducing future legislation to deal with unofficial action. That was bound to receive some coverage in the light of the unofficial action on the London Underground, but the idea that action can be taken to prevent people from striking unofficially is hardly sustainable.
Do the Government intend to introduce legislation to fine or otherwise penalise the unions? That is nonsense, because unofficial action, by definition, is action taken in defiance of trade union instructions. Will they seek to imprison the organisers of such action? In the case of the London Underground action, it is extremely unlikely that they would ever find the organisers. Even against the background of, for instance, the action that the Government took over GCHQ to undermine basic human liberties relating to the right to engage in trade union activity, it is hard to believe that they would legislate for people to be locked up simply because they sought to withdraw their labour. Whether or not the Secretary of State was serious, I suspect that, when they examine the proposal, the Government will find it impracticable.
What is disturbing, however, is that the Government still seem to be considering legislation to trammel and restrict trade union activities further. All the evidence—including much of the evidence obtained by the Government on the consultative documents issued in connection with the Bill—has asked them not to take such action.
In respect of a Bill debated in the last Session, the extent to which representations were made by the Confederation of British Industry, the British Institute of Management and the Institute of Personnel Management, implying and sometimes explicitly arguing that the Government had gone more than far enough, was remarkable. That was the view even of organisations that supported the Government when they first enacted employment legislation on being returned to power.
The idea that the Government can further attack trade union rights is wholly indefensible. I do not believe that it has many supporters. It represents simply a continuation of the Government's policy of attacking and undermining trade union activity. That does not reduce union disputes. It must be clear even to the Government that the main reason for the reduction in industrial disputes is mass unemployment. Because of its scale, the average worker feels lucky to have a job and in those circumstances is not in a position to withdraw his labour. However, in some areas—and particularly London—there is not only full employment but employers are finding it hard to recruit. As a consequence, the unions' bargaining power is enhanced and there is a prospect of industrial action. The situation is exacerbated by the sharp rise in the cost of living.
We bitterly resent clause 10. I ask the Minister to answer my question relating to amendment No. 31, as I am genuinely uncertain as to its true effect. I cannot regard it as a technical amendment. The Minister referred to a recent case that was cited in the Standing Committee, and he may have been implying that the amendment would ensure the same outcome. If that is so, I regard the amendment as purely technical. Perhaps the Minister will explain precisely the implications of amendment No. 31.

Mr. Harry Barnes: We are debating important matters relating to time off for trade union duties and for involvement in training. I prefer to talk about the opportunities for education. Trade unionists do not have to be taught by rote, but need to understand difficult and complex situations in which different views, values and arguments must be taken into account.
The question must be asked whether we are here dealing with purely technical amendments or with something considerably more significant. The changes made in Committee and the defeats that Labour suffered there were certainly significant.
At least four pieces of legislation must be carefully examined. They are the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, the amendment in Committee which referred the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, and the amendments now before the House, which can be interpreted in many different ways and certainly need clarifying. The original Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 stated that trade unionists should be allowed time off

"(a) to carry out those duties of his as such an official which are concerned with industrial relations between his employer and any associated employer, and their employees; or
(b) to undergo training in aspects of industrial relations which is—

(i) relevant to the carrying out of those duties; and
(ii) approved by the Trades Union Congress or by the independent trade union of which he is an official."

That is being destroyed and specific measures were introduced in Committee stating that those provisions should be available only for matters involving trade disputes as defined in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. However, it was argued that other items could be involved in recognition agreements which might still be debated.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who answered the debate in Committee, was quite insistent that recognition agreements were of vast importance and significance. In a 22-minute speech, during which there were eight interventions, he managed to mention recognition agreements 11 times and said:
We agree that, in principle, training of trade union officials is a good thing. In our view, trained shop stewards are better than untrained shop stewards".
He continued:
Clause 10 is not inconsistent with that view in any way. All it states is that the employers' obligation to allow paid time off for training and other trade union duties must be governed by the terms of the recognition agreement with the trade union. What is unreasonable about that?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 February 1989; c. 354.]
The amendments might destroy the possibility of the recognition agreement being taken into account. Our argument in Committee was that the recognition agreement would be undermined in regard to time off for trade union duties by clause 10 which would alter the legal


framework in which trade unions could negotiate. The Government did not take that view. They believe that negotiations have nothing to do with power relationships in industry and that two good-natured people chatting together can sort things out.
What does amendment No. 32 mean? It introduces a fresh provision about other training and educational duties that could be involved. It states:
(i) any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with the performance, on behalf of employees of the employer, of any functions that are related to or connected with any matters falling within that provision and that the employer has agreed may be so performed by the trade union;
The second part of the amendment seems to refer to recognition agreements. But to what does the first part refer? Why do we need fresh language now? Is there a legal possibility that the second part of the amendment would be tied in with the words "falling within that provision" to clause 10(a)(i), which refers to section 29 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act? Is it possible that, although a matter was included within a recognition agreement, the employer could disobey that recognition agreement because the agreement on time off for trade union studies exceeded the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act? If my interpretation is correct, if flies in the face of what we were told 11 times in Committee by the hon. Member for Pendle.
1.15 am
In Committee, the Minister said that health and safety provision would not be affected, but amendment No. 32 might affect it. It says:
any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with
negotiations with an employer
that are related to or connected with any matters falling within
section 29(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.
The words
that are related to connected or with any matters
throw the matter wide open and make an improvement. Are negotiations with an employer possible negotiations under the appropriate section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act or are they actual negotiations, which will depend on power relationships within an industry and may be highly restrictive, given the other trade union legislation that has been passed in recent years? Clause 10(a)(i) may be highly restrictive, and may add to the problem with clause 10(a)(ii) if it is interpreted in the way that I suggested earlier.
There is much need for time off for trade union duties and education. The Bill, which is of much interest to trade unionists, young people, women who may have to work in a pit and disabled people, may exclude from discussion matters such as time off for trade union duties, terms of employment, the allocation of work duties, matters of discipline, membership of a trade union, facilities for trade union officials and machinery for negotiation. A legal interpretation of the Bill might restrict such activity.
I should like more detail of the Bill's provisions and why the amendments are necessary. To argue that they are technical and that therefore we need not worry too much about them does not carry much weight because other

measures described in Committee as technical which were opposed by Labour Members produced serious problems for working people.

Mr. McCartney: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind remarks about my recent illness. I hope to prove that I am back to full fitness as I catch your eye again and again. That is not a threat.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is a promise.

Mr. McCartney: You said it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The clause is important. We are trying to elicit from the Government the true intention behind their proposals. In his detailed analysis, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) clearly showed that in practice on the shop floor it is vitally important that trade unions are able to use legislation when their legal rights are challenged. That applies particularly in industries where trade unions are in a weak position, not necessarily because of low membership but because of the way in which that membership is situated in particular industries and the relationship between employees and the companies in those industries.
It is important that legislation does not create further imbalances which reduce the ability of working people to join a trade union and to make recognition of that union effective by the way in which an employer provides resources and facilities, such as time off, for the trade union representatives to carry out their duties.
As a former shop steward, I have always taken the view that it is paramount in good industrial relations that an employer recognises the work of trade unions in the workplace and the way in which they can make a positive contribution to the development of the company and, in the day-to-day management of a company, their contribution in terms of developing strategies and improvements in work force techniques, the development and use of new technology, and the way in which relationships and communications can be improved in an industrial setting.
All that can be done only by the active co-operation and involvement of trade unions. Where that co-operation is sought, it can be effective only when trade unions have the right to ensure that their contribution is underpinned by time off and other resources.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, in Committee the Minister said that all those matters were covered by recognition agreements. That is significant, because recognition agreements are central to whether trade unionists have any rights under current legislation.
For example, the first part of clause 10 says:
In section 27(1) of the 1978 Act (duty of employer to permit employee who is an official of an independent trade union recognised by employer to take time off to carry out certain trade union duties)
That recognition is vital to whether a trade unionist can, in reality, effectively carry out his or her work on behalf of the trade union and the work force.
The reality is that under the Government ACAS, in its handbook for small firms, says that there is no statutory obligation on the employer to recognise the trade union. An employer who refuses to recognise a trade union undermines completely what the Minister said, because it, follows from that that there is no recognition of statutory rights.
Again, hedging its bets and advising on representation rights, on page 57 of the handbook, ACAS says:
Sometimes employers do not think there is enough strength of feeling for trade unions within the workforce to justify full recognition.
We all recognise that as the first excuse by employers to prevent trade unions being recognised.
It goes on:
Instead they may agree to representation rights which do not provide for full negotiations with the employer but entitle members to be represented by their union individually eg, in disciplinary cases or if the employee has a grievance".
Here we are talking about a situation where an employer may give certain rights, but there is no full recognition agreement. That agreement does not, therefore, meet the test set out by the Minister in Committee because it does not deal with facilities, training and time off. If the trade union does not accept that, the result is no union recognition.
In giving an example of what can happen, I will not name the company because the individual concerned is still employed, albeit tenuously, by the firm. I wrote to the Minister some time ago about this case and received an unsatisfactory reply, in which I was sent a leaflet about the employment of disabled workers, was reminded that an employer did not have to recognise a trade union and was told that the Government could not intervene.
My example involves a woman who was employed by a company which was taken over by a large retail organisation. The original employer had employed her under the provisions for employing disabled workers; the lady in question has suffered from major disabilities since birth. The original employer recognised trade unions and the value of employing disabled people. Following the takeover, the new employers informed the trade unions concerned that the company would no longer recognise unions in negotiation proceedings and would not offer the right of representation to individual employees.
The new company told the employees in the company in Wigan which had been taken over that working arrangements would be changed in a significant way. For example, the girl in the example I am giving had been employed as an assistant at a cash desk. Her job description was changed and she was to become a sales person with a weekly and monthly sales target to reach. Her disabilities were such that she was unable to reach those targets and she became liable to disciplinary proceedings by the company.
The company told her that it would not recognise her trade union and attempted through harassment to discipline her because, as I say, her disabilities prevented her from selling sufficient television sets, video recorders and other machines to the public.
When I wrote to the company pointing out the previous arrangements and claiming that the young lady should at least have the right to be represented by the trade union concerned at a disciplinary hearing, I was told that, because there was no recognition agreement, it had no requirement to allow her to be represented. However, the company said that it would allow her to have present a friend who was not employed by the company.
At that stage I wrote to the Minister claiming that that was unsatisfactory, with the harassment of a disabled person whose statutory rights were being undermined. The Minister washed his hands of the whole affair. He turned a blind eye and would not intervene, even though a major

national company was harassing a disabled worker because it was claimed that she was not reaching sales targets.
It is in such cases, where partial agreements exist or where no agreement exists, that the rights of trade unions to represent individuals are undermined. In Committee, the Minister said that all would be well so long as there was an agreement. I have shown that employers who do not want to provide facilities for trade unionists just do not make agreements or they restrict such agreements as they are prepared to make. The Government amendments represent further restrictions on agreements, which will be interpreted in such a way that the rights that unions have to represent their members will be further eroded.
1.30 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) raised the issue of 1992, which is vital to all trade unionists in the United Kingdom. I will use an example here too from my own constituency.
Heinz is one of the major employers in Wigan and we have a good relationship with it as a company. This example is not an indication of what Heinz may or may not do in the sense of the many policy statements that have been issued, but it shows what could happen after 1992 unless the Government give some clear guidelines to employers such as Heinz.
Currently Heinz has two factories in the United Kingdom and has acquired over a number of years factories in Portugal, Spain, Holland and Italy. The factory in Wigan, which is the largest manufacturing base in Europe, is the area for the production of baby foods —where a controversy has recently been raging—baked beans, ravioli and the like. The factory at Harlesden in north London produces pastas, such as spaghetti, Weight Watchers and other such lines and pickles. In 1992 these units could be in competition with factories in Europe. For example, the factory in Holland has almost the same production capacity as that in Wigan and a very similar product range.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the amendment before us, which deals with time off for trade unionists.

Mr. McCartney: That is precisely the point that I want to make about 1992, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The production capacity of the factories in Spain, Italy and Portugal is such that it could lead to significant changes by switching production from the United Kingdom to the European sector, as has happened with the Ford Motor company and other companies in the engineering industry. Come 1992, will there be obligations and rights for trade unionists in Britain to sit down with their counterparts in Europe to discuss the implications of 1992, the overall level of production in Heinz as a company, the role of each of the production bases in Europe and the benefits or otherwise of switching production between factories?
Unless there are statutory rights as between factories, the rights of workers after 1992 in this sector of the food industry will be radically undermined even if the employer is a decent employer, so it is vital that there is a clear indication from the Minister that he is not going to rely on the so-called recognition agreements, because in many instances they will not be agreed between employers and trade unionists, but will set down specifically the right of


workers to have their trade union recognised and specify that minimum standards must be provided for the trade union to operate on behalf of its members.
That brings me to an issue on bargaining and training. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) want to intervene? I know he is a champagne lout—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman needs your protection from these remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker; he is very sensitive. I do not want to take the time of hon. Gentlemen if they want to make a positive contribution to the debate, as I am genuinely attempting to do.
On the issue of training, in terms of both bargaining and health and safety, many instances of a breakdown between employers and employees are the result of inadequate consultation over the bargaining system and the rights of employees within that system in terms of their being specifically involved in bargaining and of how those systems are refined in the sense of interpreting them. It happens both in terms of those specifically involved in bargaining and how those bargaining systems are refined in the sense of interpreting them, which involves the general work force, and in interpreting bargaining representation.
Good employers—and there are many in the United Kingdom—prefer to provide the opportunity to ensure that where bargaining arrangements exist, the trade unions involved in them are training to ensure that they have an absolute knowledge and grasp of the bargaining procedures and that they also understand and are involved in how decisions are transmitted to the work force. The Minister has not responded positively to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang). He has not said that there must be specific protection in the Bill for training on bargaining agreements. The same is true of health and safety and other matters. Unless the Minister becomes more positive, the Opposition can continue only with the clear understanding that this Government use employment legislation to weaken the rights of trade unionists and employees, and do so specifically to change the balance of power in industry and to weaken and undermine the ability of employees to negotiate. In doing that, rather than protecting and enhancing industrial relations, they are undermining industrial relations.

Mr. Michael Welsh: It is of great importance to industrial relations that workers are educated about them. The average age of people working for British Coal is about 34. The chairman of British Coal has said that he will welcome the opportunity to give courses to educate young people in trade unions in industrial relations and collective bargaining. I believe that you would welcome that, Madam Deputy Speaker, although the Government will not.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. I welcome the fact that British Coal has recognised the error of its ways in previous years and is now attempting to improve the ability to communicate and the involvement of trade unions.
Another area in which I would welcome a greater degree of training and involvement of trade unions and

employees is in negotiations and discussions on pension provisions. Here again, it is vital in the bargaining procedures and in the recognition agreement, by which the Minister lays great store, that there is clear recognition of the need for time off with pay for employees' representatives to be involved in the negotiations on pension provisions for employees. That is vital, given the changes in legislation in recent years about rights in connection with pensions and the ability of employers and employees to switch pensions between companies and divisions of individual companies. Unless employers recognise the need for time off for training and involvement in the negotiations and administration of pension schemes, employees will again be at a distinct disadvantage.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 has now been altered as a result of the changes that took place in Committee. The position now is that the definition of trade disputes will determine what it is that employees are allowed to be educated about. There are seven categories in the 1974 Act, but none of them makes any direct reference to pensions being a possible item under discussion. It would have to be argued that terms and conditions of employment, which are one category under the Act, should be considered. It is possible that, within law, the terms and conditions of employment do not include pensions because they are not directly part of working, but are a benefit that people receive when they have left work.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. He referred earlier to the Minister's remarks in Committee, and to the great store that the hon. Gentleman set by recognition agreements. If a recognition agreement is all that an employee can rely upon in his relations with his employer, it must include his absolute right to involvement in the determination and administration of any pension scheme that the company may operate independently of, or in conjunction with, other companies. That right must be included if the recognition agreement is to mean anything.
We must also consider what would happen under the Bill as amended if an employee who was up on a disciplinary charge were sacked by the company and went to a tribunal. Let us suppose that the shop steward wants to represent that employee against the company. Would the amendment prevent a shop steward or workplace representative from having time off with pay to act on behalf of the employee?

Mr. Cryer: The brutal new law passed by the set of savages who are in government at the moment removes benefit for 26 weeks. Because of that, employers often send representatives to tribunals dealing with cases amounting, in effect, to cases of unfair dismissal, to claim that the employee has been fairly dismissed and was in breach of some disciplinary procedure or other. That allows employers to disbar employees from 26 weeks' benefit. If the worker does not have the right to similar representation, the employer can make a one-sided case, in which the worker comes off worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is making an important point.

Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but my worries go even further. Even if an employer refuses to allow a shop steward to represent an


employee who has been dismissed or disciplined, that employee should still have the right to call on fellow workers as witnesses in any disciplinary proceedings. Will the Minister give a commitment that employees will be given time off with pay to act as witnesses on behalf of the disciplined employee or employees? If not, it can be argued that significant changes are afoot in trade unionists' right to representation.
What happens if a trade union representative proposes to represent an employee at a Department of Social Security appeal tribunal concerning the payment of a benefit in respect of an absence resulting from an industrial accident or injury? An employee who has sustained an accident at work may have been excluded from claiming a number of benefits for which he is, in fact, eligible, and he may ask for his trade union representative to represent him at the tribunal. There is a direct correlation between the accident at work and the employee's right to claim the benefit and his workplace trade union representative therefore has a right to represent him. In such circumstances, is it not fair and right that the employer should allow that trade union representative time off with pay to represent the employee at the tribunal? It is not at all clear whether the amendment would undermine that basic principle.
I know that a number of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate. Let me finish, therefore, by asking the Minister a specific question about the rights of disabled workers, particularly in respect of recognition. Does he agree that it is about time that the Department of Employment made it clear that there is a duty on major employers to make provision for disabled people in the workplace? Where there is evidence that the rights of those disabled people have been undermined, should not the Department take it upon itself to ensure that that state of affairs does not continue?
1.45 am
It would be absolute nonsense and a sham if the Department were to issue leaflets telling employers of the need to recognise the rights of the disabled in the workplace while at the same time the Minister writes to Members of Parliament saying that if employers undermine existing rights it is nothing to do with the Department, but a matter between the employer and the employee. Have we really reached the stage when the disabled can be so flagrantly disregarded by the Government and their position so undermined that there is harassment to get rid of disabled employees? That is wholly unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will take steps to strengthen the rights of the disabled in the workplace.

Mr. Cryer: It often strikes me that Tories are much more interested in machinery than in people. If, for example, an employer wished to introduce new machinery, there would be long discussions in the board room, new training provision and assessments of the machines' output, the installation costs and the degree of protection for the machinery—most of it imported under the Tory Government. Yet the Government rarely understand that there must be the same degree of scrutiny and education on behalf of the employees.
This nation's most important asset is its people. The relationship of people to machines and to each other is a continuing process of negotiation in industrial relations. If

people are to be allowed to retain their dignity, they must operate within independent trade unions. The Government love the trade unions to operate anywhere other than in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister dances with delight about the trade union movement in Poland—not because she is concerned with trade unions or, indeed, anyone in particular in Poland, but because she thinks that any movement among the people in Poland must inevitably lead to the breakdown of the system so that private enterprise capitalism and the enterprise culture can be instituted.
The right hon. Lady claims concern for the trade unions. We are members of a party that sprang from a trade union movement, that came into being because the factor of production called labour—a collection of people —demanded dignity and the right to participate, at the very least, in the productive processes. I work to make labour superior to capital. I hate the process in which the owners of capital dictate to labour in that list of the fact ors of production. However, because that process exists, I seek to give working men and women—labour—an opportunity to exercise some dignity. Time off for trade union activities is part of that pattern of preserving human dignity.
Tory Members know that the board rooms where most of them spent many years are not tatty or badly ventilated. The directors make sure that they are well furnished, well lit and well ventilated, so that discussions can be held in quiet circumstances. If they concede reasonable canteen conditions for the workers, it is sometimes done with enthusiasm but sometimes with an ill grace.
The clause and the amendments are trying to take away some established rights that have been built up over the years for trade unions to participate in a limited range of activities, with time off from work with pay. As I mentioned in an intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who made a good, comprehensive speech, the proposal, which will mean that the terms and conditions for time off with pay will depend on local collective agreements, is a formula for further conflict.
If a national code of conduct is produced by ACAS or another reputable organisation, it has the imprimatur of a code of guidance even though it may not be legally enforceable. There would be standard terms and conditions for time off for each factory. Therefore, if there was a meeting of trade unionists to reach a collective understanding, there would not be an argument about why Fred Smith or Charles Jones, convenors from the factory in Birmingham, Norwich or Nelson, were not there because their employer would not give them time off. Otherwise, argument might start about why A should be given time off and B should not, and why C should get only half the time necessary for the discussion on training or whatever. Inevitably there would be pressure from the workpeople and from the individuals themselves, or perhaps from the individuals to start with, spreading to the work force, who would say that their representatives should have the same rights as representatives of other firms doing the same sort of work and seeking the same sort of training.
A union might organise a conference on 1992. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Young of Graffham, did not start the campaign on 1992—with glossy pamphlets and massive public expenditure—in a back street. As I recall, he set it off with a series of


breakfasts, all paid for by the taxpayer, for industrialists. He thought that he would give industrialists a chance to chat together about it. But if an employer decides that a trade unionist is not to be allowed to attend a conference on 1992, that will be the sole decision of the employer.
Amendment No. 32 refers to
any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with the performance, on behalf of employees of the employer, of any functions that are related to or connected with any matters falling within that provision and that the employer has agreed may be so performed by the trade union".
The phrase "the employer has agreed" means that it will be a unilateral decision. I do not think that that is right. The best arrangements in a workplace are made by collective discussion and agreement.
The unilateral decision of the employer will apply to an activity that might well cover the obsession of the current Government advertising campaign with the wonderful benefits of 1992. The textile unions might want to organise a conference on burden-sharing arrangements for textile imports by 1992 after the renegotiation of the existing multi-fibre arrangement. That would be a legitimate discussion because it would be a matter about which both the employers and the employees in the textile industry would be very much concerned. The discussion could be about other things, such as the high interest rates created by the Government's economic policies, short-time working, loss of jobs or lack of investment.
However, under these proposals, in the textile industry, for example, Courtaulds may have a collective agreement that allows its shop stewards time off, but another firm, such as Bulmer and Lumb or Benson and Turner in my constituency, might say, "We do not think that you should have time off." Therefore, a conflict will arise. The trade union movement will naturally attempt to obtain standard terms and conditions for every one of the organised workplaces, and it is only right that it should do so. It would be unjust if there was a disparity in attendance at such a conference as I have outlined, where the discussion would concern the future of the textile industry, which is still important to northern areas, such as Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Minister's proposal to alter the Bill, which is not a very fruitful Bill in any event, is, therefore, likely to cause conflict.

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend consider the situation whereby employees are now having to consider involvement in competitive tendering in the Health Service and in local government services? It is necessary for them to be involved for the first time in the tendering procedure and their ability to be so involved is linked to their ability to have paid time off to secure the right education and background to develop ideas for submitting tenders, for checking tenders and for validation of tenders. I know already of situations where trade unionists are being told that they will not be allowed paid time off for such activity. Will my hon. Friend indicate whether he believes that the amendment will undermine that position even further?

Mr. Cryer: Clearly, if there was a trade union conference called about those circumstances, in which the aim of the trade unions would be almost certainly to secure tenders and to obtain jobs for their members, paid time off should be allowed. We must remember that the

background to the discussions is not a deep underlying antagonism of the trade union movement to capitalism and all its works, but the aim of protecting its members, to preserve jobs and, indeed, to improve the efficiency of the enterprise in which its members work. There are many examples where trade unions have entered into agreements on productivity arrangements. For example, in the textile industry, three-shift working, changes in staffing, the flexibility of staff and the introduction of new machinery have all been accepted because the trade unions have been co-operative. As a matter of interest, many thousands of textile workers who lost their jobs did not have the co-operation of their employers, which they so richly deserved.
My point is that the trade unionists may well wish to go to a conference, because they see a conference about public procurement as an important means of securing the future viability of the factory in which they are working. However, under amendment No. 32 it would be entirely up to the employer as to whether they would be allowed to go or not, which is wrong.
There are many moves which will vitally affect jobs in our country. For example, there is the public procurement directive of the EEC, in which it states that tenders of public bodies will have to be put out to the whole of the Common Market. That could be a threatening provision for jobs in the United Kingdom, which has a massive balance of payments deficit. If the directive is introduced without safeguards, the proportion of our public procurement trade from non-member states could rocket from its present level of 2 per cent. of £4 billion. The trade union movement would hold meetings at weekends and outside working hours, but inevitably part of the working week would have to be used. I am talking about activities which fall within the amendment and which would be mounted because of concern by trade unions for their members' jobs.
2 am
It is wrong that the employer should have the sole decision-making capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) said, trade unions need to be independent so that they cannot be suborned or silenced when representing their members at disciplinary hearings. An employer may say, "I will not give you time off to represent a trade union member in a case appealing against my decision." In all fairness, that must happen. An industrial or social security tribunal hears evidence from both sides. The outcome of discussions that take place before a tribunal hearing is not a matter for the employer.
It is similar to a plaintiff in court being denied representation when a defendant has representation. Everyone would say, "That is unjust." Under this legislation, a one-sided case can be presented by an employer, who can afford to employ a solicitor. Industrial tribunals have been legalised away from the basic formality that they were established to provide—not by workers but by employers, who obtained and paid for the services of solicitors and barristers. That is one reason why the right of trade union officials to time off should be made clear. That would provide the justice that most people recognise as important in a court of law and in social and industrial tribunals.

Mr. Bob Clay: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the remarks made by my hon.


Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on the role of trade unions in discussions on local authority privatisations? Apart from local authority privatisations being forced through Parliament by the Government, a growing number of management and employee buy-outs are taking place, encouraged by the Government. Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that in many ways the Government's proposal operates against their competition policies? Management could use the discretion that they will have if the amendment is passed to discriminate between one employee or management buy-out and another. Sometimes trade union officials would be allowed time off to develop business plans and prepare buy-outs and sometimes they would not. That would be not merely unfair but corrupt.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. In a sense, it would amount to insider dealing, with employers using their position under apparently unconnected legislation to manipulate decisions and keep trade unionists out of one set of negotiations while allowing them to participate in another. That is an important point, because yet again the decision-making apparatus is in the hands of the owners of capital, while labour is, in every sense, at their mercy. Many important moves are taking place in legislation due to the Government's decisions.
For example, it would be reasonable for employees of the National Health Service to have time off to discuss the takeover of the cleaning services. I have an exact case in point. Trade unions were, as it were, privatised by an organisation called Taylor Plan. Employees to whom a wage award had been made during their period of service found that, if they left service before the payment was handed over, Taylor Plan refused to make the payment. That happened to employees who worked when the award was negotiated and when it was operative, but had not been paid out because of delays in computer programming, the post or whatever excuse the administration produced.
If people are struggling from week to week to meet payments for rates, electricity and gas, and are driven to get electricity tokens from the Yorkshire electricity board to feed their electricity meters because they are scrimping and saving week by week, a back payment is important. It is essential that their trade union representatives should be able to participate in discussions to ensure that collective agreements on privatisation are at least equal to those agreements that they have already negotiated with the public authority.
The Government produce the change in circumstances because, by the back-door privatisation of the Health Service, they require health authorities to sell off their cleaning and other services. They did it first to cleaners and are now trying to do it to doctors, from whom, I am delighted to say, they are encountering enormous resistance, and to local authorities. Therefore, there are more reasons why trade unions need the opportunity to discuss the changes taking place in working practices, ownership and negotiations which arise solely out of the mad theological doctrines of the gangsters who currently govern our nation, but whose time, I am happy to say, is running out. It is important to clarify the trade unions' position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East, and no doubt the Minister, would say that different rules affect health and safety at work. Time off is allowed for health

and safety at work matters but is in the process of becoming highly qualified for other matters. I wonder why. Is it because, with health and safety at work, there is a clear link between the loss of hours of work and industrial injury, and, therefore, it is sensible, even to the class warriors of the Right wing in the Government, to give time off to discuss health and safety at work to prevent a loss of hours? However, the relationship between time off and industrial relations, and the panoply of associated ideas, is not quite so plain.
Good industrial relations spring from the confidence of two sections of industry, employers and workers, in each other. If employer and employees are bickering over who is to have time off in every circumstance, week after week, it erodes that confidence. It reduces morale on both sides, leading almost inevitably to a lowering of productivity, and is entirely counter-productive. I should have thought that the rationale for allowing time off to cover health and safety provisions should apply across the board.
As I have said before in the House, it is difficult to examine the statistics relating to industrial injury and those relating to strike action because the Government have removed from the 1984 statistics those relating to time lost through injuries requiring three or more days off work. If the Minister examines those statistics, however, he will find that in any average year more days are lost through industrial injury than through strike action. The Government should cast aside their shibboleth that trade unionists are always organising strikes, and look at the reality in industry: that trade unionists want to protect their members' jobs, want a wide range of interests to be associated with those jobs and want an educated and confident work force in a factory where some mutual trust and confidence exists. The Government's qualification for time off will not produce that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) pointed out, the Government have provided no assessment or calculation as a basis for that qualification. Although I was not on the Committee, I understand that there, too, no information was produced to enable the Government to point to a lowering of productivity or an increase in industrial disputes as a result of the existing legislation and code of practice. If that is the case—as I firmly believe—it is another instance of the blind prejudice of a Government who provide the mm and women working in the diminished number of factories still remaining with the best example of class warriors. It is the Government who want to attack organised working men and women, and to diminish their aims of dignity and parity with the owners of capital.
I have no doubt that the Government will proceed with their amendments, but we shall still have won the arguments, and the arguments here will be transferred to the factories. The Government amendments are a first-class formula for disputes between employer and employee, and for a lowering in morale, tone and output wherever the new rules apply.

Mr. Nicholls: Running through the debate has been the theme that the Government amendments are not technical, and I accept that that is a justifiable concern on which I shall try to satisfy the House.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) put his finger on it when he talked about the way in which the system should operate, and when he said that the purposes for which people would be able to take paid leave


would be determined by the existing collective agreement. I think that the implication was that the matter should be left to the common sense of employers and employees alike, without Government interference. For all I know, that may have been the intent of those who drafted the 1978 Act, but in practice it worked out in precisely the opposite way.
2.15 am
It became clear at a relatively early stage, and certainly in the Court of Appeal case of Beale and others v. Beecham Group Ltd., not that unions were able to reach agreement with an employer as to the matters for which an employee would be entitled to paid leave but that the matter went further than that. The effect of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Beale case was that, once there was recognition of collective bargaining, it became virtually impossible for the employer to say, "I did not mean collective bargaining in its entirety but particular aspects of collective bargaining." Once there was recognition of agreement on collective bargaining, it meant whatever the union wanted it to mean. Clearly use was being made of the original purposes of the 1978 Act, which was far too wide, and the Government felt that that scenario should be addressed.
In the context of the Bill, the Government introduced clause 10 whose purpose—despite the inevitably complex drafting—is easy enough to understand in layman's terms, even if the lawyers are not always satisfied. Its purpose is to ensure that employers will have only to provide paid leave for matters that they recognise in respect of the unions concerned. That is why clause 10 was originally drafted in the way that it was.
However, even while the Bill was in Committee, and as clause 10 itself was being debated, the Court of Appeal made a good attempt, as it turned out, to address the problem that Beale brought to prominence. It did so in the case of Adlington v. British Bakeries. The rationale was that, even in respect of an item covered by a recognition agreement, and notwithstanding the dictum in the Beale case, there should still be a degree of proximity between what was being claimed in relation to paid time off and actual negotiations. The Adlington case introduced the concept not only of theoretical recognition but proximity to actual negotiations. In the context of that decision, the Court of Appeal addressed the same problem that the Government attempted to address with clause 10.
At that stage, parliamentary counsel clearly had to examine the drafting of clause 10 and decide whether it needed adjusting in the light of Adlington; or, in layman's terms, to see whether any useful ingredient in the Adlington case had not been taken into account in clause 10. Parliamentary counsel reached the conclusion that the concept of proximity was useful and one that clause 10 alone would not address. It was with a view to retaining that concept of proximity that the amendments now before the House were devised.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 fall into two distinct groups. Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, within the intention of clause 10, preserve the proximity concept contained in Adlington, whereas amendments Nos. 33 and 34 deal with a different matter entirely.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised the issue of associated employers, and in

doing so he identified the purpose of amendments Nos. 33 and 34. Incidentally, I correctly described amendments Nos. 30 to 34 as technical because they are, in the sense that, once one accepts the purpose of clause 10—which I realise Opposition Members do not—and the fusing of the proximity concept with Adlington, the amendments become a purely technical exercise, but in the way of these things, it is not a simple one. They are technical amendments to that extent.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 take the opportunity to remedy a defect in the drafting of section 32 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The irony is that that defect would have been apparent on the face of the 1978 Act. Section 32 sets out the definition of the term "recognised" as it applies to independent trade unions for the purposes of sections 27 to 31(a)—the time-off provisions. Amendment No. 31 would amend section 32 of the 1978 Act because the definition of "recognised" is redundant and has been so since 1978, because "recognised" means
recognised by an employer or two or more associated employers".
But sections 27(1) and 28(2) of the 1978 Act to which the definition applies speak of "an employer" and
an independent trade union recognised by him".
So the reference in the statutory definition to "associated employers" is clearly otiose, and this is a good opportunity to remove it. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 would preserve the proximity concept in Adlington. Notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East asked me specifically about amendment No. 32.
I reiterate that the purpose of clause 10 is to give a right to time off for duties which are connected not with negotiations but with the performance of other functions such as representation through a grievance procedure which the employer has agreed to allow the union to perform. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are connected. They both seek to ensure that that proximity concept is retained.
I appreciate that the amendments are not easy amendments, but I assure the House that all they do is ensure that clause 10 stands, while at the same time clearing up an anomaly in the 1978 Act and making sure that the concept of proximity is retained.
In all fairness, the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) needs to be addressed. In effect, the hon. Gentleman was saying that he had spotted what the clause was all about. He did not refer to paid time off, although that is what we are debating, but he disapproved of the fact that the employer should decide and he suspected that that is what the clause is all about. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He spotted precisely what the clause is all about. Despite the words that the lawyers choose for us, the principle is simple enough. If the employer is expected to give paid time off for matters for which he has recognised the union, it is right that it should be only for those matters for which he has recognised the union. The employer has decided to recognise the union for those purposes, so it is complete nonsense that, merely because an employer recognises a union for one purpose, he should suddenly find that in practice he is obliged to pay for some other purpose.
The underlying purpose of clause 10 and the amendments is to ensure that, if an employer recognises a


union for a particular purpose, that is the purpose for which paid time off is given. Ultimately the employer pays the wages. I am not hiding it from the hon. Gentleman that the employer should be entitled to say to the trade union,
I recognise you for this purpose; therefore, you are entitled to paid time off. I do not recognise you for that purpose; therefore, you are not.
When I moved the amendments formally I said that they were technical. They are technical. At the same time I accept that they are complex, but I trust that, even at this hour, I have given the House some elucidation. We shall find out in a moment or two whether I have given any comfort.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 30.

Division No. 226]
[2.24 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lilley, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Amos, Alan
Lye Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Maclean, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Ashby, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Batiste, Spencer
Maude, Hon Francis


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Mills, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bright, Graham
Mitchell, Sir David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sydney
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Neubert, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Devlin, Tim
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Dorrell, Stephen
Norris, Steve


Durant, Tony
Paice, James


Favell, Tony
Patnick, Irvine


Fishburn, John Dudley
Raffan, Keith


Forth, Eric
Redwood, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
Ryder, Richard


French, Douglas
Sackville, Hon Tom


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gregory, Conal
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stevens, Lewis


Hague, William
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hanley, Jeremy
Summerson, Hugo


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Harris, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hawkins, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Heddle, John
Trippier, David


Hind, Kenneth
Trotter, Neville


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Waller, Gary


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Irvine, Michael
Watts, John


Jack, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Widdecombe, Ann


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wood, Timothy


Kirkhope, Timothy



Knapman, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knowles, Michael
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and


Lee, John (Pendle)
Mr. Michael Fallon.


Lightbown, David



NOES


Alton, David
Battle, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Bob





Clelland, David
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Richardson, Jo


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Strang, Gavin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wallace, James


Home Robertson, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Howells, Geraint
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Illsley, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kennedy, Charles



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Noes:


McCartney, Ian
Mrs. Llin Golding and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 9, line 11, leave out from 'with' to 'section' in line 12 and insert
`negotiations with the employer that are related to or connected with any matters which fall within'.
No. 32, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
'(ii) any other duties of his, as such an official, which are concerned with the performance, on behalf of employees of the employer, of any functions that are related to or connected with any matters falling within that provision and that the employer has agreed may be so performed by the trade union;'.—[Mr. Lee.]

Clause 16

PRE-HEARING REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 35 in page 12, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—

`(i) by the Tribunal; or
(ii) as determined in accordance with the regulations, by any chairman being a member of the panel of chairmen.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 36, in page 12, line 31, leave out '£150' and insert '£50'.
No. 38, in page 12, line 42, after 'order', insert
`but the sum so specified shall not exceed 2% of the s am for the time being prescribed for the purposes of section 75(1) of this Act.'.
No. 37, in line 42, at end add—
`(4) Where regulations are made which authorise the making of an order of the kind referred to in subparagraph (2)(a) above, nothing in this Act or in those regulations shall authorise the making of such an order unless—

(a) the party against whom the order is made has had not less than 3 weeks' notice of the pre-hearing review, or has agreed in writing to waive such notice;
(b) that party has had an opportunity to appear in person or be represented at the pre-hearing review, or to submit written representations if he so elects;
(c) the tribunal or person which makes the order has made such enquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances, including his financial obligations, and is satisfied that—

(i) it is reasonably practical for that party to pay the deposit within the time within which it is ordered to be paid;
(ii) undue hardship will not be caused to that party if the deposit is paid by him and is not refunded to him;

(d) the tribunal or person which makes the orders considers in the light of the originating application and entry of appearance, any representations in writing which have been submitted and oral argument advanced by or on behalf of a Party, that


the contentions or any particular contentions of the party against whom the order is made appear or appears to have no reasonable prospect of success.'.

No. 39 in page 15, line 21, after 'Act', insert—
`(c) an order under section 16(3) which increases the sum specified in paragraph 1A(2)(a) of Schedule 9 to the 1978 Act.

Mr. Wallace: The amendment relates to the administrative and initial arrangements in clause 16 for pre-hearings before industrial tribunals. Its purpose is to ensure that, when determining whether a case receives a pre-hearing review, that determination shall be carried out only by the tribunal or by a chairman who is a member of the panel.
The clause as drafted makes provision for the promulgation of regulations permitting
such persons as may be determined by or in accordance with the regulations
to conduct a pre-hearing review. That vague phrase could cover a multitude of sinners as well as a multitude of virtuous people. It would be unsatisfactory to leave that form of words unamended. The British Institute of Management feels that it would be better if we retained the present system of informal discussions that often take place before a tribunal goes ahead, rather than the formalised structure set out in the clause.
However, if we are to have an institutionalised pre-hearing review, it should be undertaken by the appropriate body—either by the tribunal or by those who, because of their qualifications and experience, have been selected to be members of the panel of chairmen, and that would be the effect of amendment No. 35.
Amendment No. 36 would reduce the deposit which any pre-hearing review could impose from £150 to £50. The history of this provision is somewhat chequered. When the Government first proposed the idea of a threshold fee, they suggested £25 but thought that it should be paid by all comers; there was to be no element of discretion. That proposal met with little approval when it went out for consultation, and it was rejected. In the light of that, the Government thought again and proposed that it be increased from £25 to £150, but making it conditional on the outcome of a pre-hearing review, no doubt on the basis that they were trying to weed out frivolous or vexatious claims.
One might have thought that before going ahead with a proposal which, in an almost novel way, introduced a financial threshold that a person must cross before putting his or her case to a tribunal, there would have been an overwhelming body of evidence to show that under the present arrangements there was widespread abuse. But there does not appear to be much authority for that proposition.
Indeed, the bodies which have made comments on this provision—for example, the employment committee of the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland—have commented that there is no body of evidence to suggest that there has been a great number of frivolous cases clogging up the tribunal system. Those bodies, along with others, find it a regrettable precedent that we are introducing into our system of justice this admission fee before people can take their case to a proper hearing.
In many respects it would be better if there were no deposit at all and if this review did not exist. But, if there is to be a deposit, it is our contention that £50 would be easier to find for less well-off employees, who, perhaps

because they have become unemployed, are much more likely to be involved in tribunal cases. Whether the Government may say about its being wrongly put about that in every case there will be a £150 deposit—I accept that that is not what is proposed here—one knows full well that that sort of idea gains currency. That in itself might deter people from taking the initial step in trying to achieve justice, as they see it, in the case of a claimed wrong. People with valid claims might never get to the stage of lodging them.
Therefore, we propose a sum which is much more realistic, although it would be very difficult for many people to find even £50 and possibly they would have to be given some time to pay. But it would be more within their ability to pay than the sum proposed in the Bill as it stands.
At this point I should refer to amendment No. 38, which I have no doubt the Minister will suggest contradicts what I have just said about amendment No. 36. I accept that there is a contradiction and something of a fallback position in amendment No. 38, because if the 2 per cent. figure were to apply in present circumstances the sum would be £170 rather than £150. We have sought to put this in because, as things stand, the Secretary of State could by regulation and subject to the negative procedure, amend the sum of the deposit from £150 to any figure at all by substituting
such other sum as is specified in the order.
No limit is put on it, and it is unsatisfactory that that carte blanche should be given to the Minister subject only to the briefest scrutiny in the Committee on Statutory Instruments, which would not be allowed to amend and would have only a limited opportunity to discuss the principle behind it. That is why we have suggested that there should be an attempt to link the deposit to the award payable, so that if there is any suggestion that the deposit should go up it would be necessary to increase the maximum award. That would impose a realistic restraint on the actions of any future Secretary of State, or indeed the present one, if he sought to abuse the procedure which is set down here.
Amendment No. 39, if carried, would make it necessary for these regulations or any substitution sum to be subject to the affirmative procedure. This would indicate the importance of this as a fundamental principle of justice not just related to the question of industrial tribunals. We are dealing here with people's rights and it is an important departure in the administration of justice in this country. It is not an incidental matter and when we are dealing with such a fundamental matter the affirmative procedure is much more appropriate.
The only amendment to which I have not yet referred is No. 37. This is an important amendment because it seeks to set some parameters within which the pre-hearing review must operate. It ensures, for example, that the basic precepts of natural justice are observed and that adequate time is given by one party to the other if a pre-hearing review is sought with the likelihood of a deposit ensuing. It ensures the right to representation or, if there is no representation, the right either to be heard or to make written representation. It tries to ensure that orders are not made against people who cannot realistically comply with them, in which case a deposit really amounts to a dismissal of the claim. The amendment proposes that it would be incumbent on the tribunal or the chairman to ensure that such a sum was not imposed if the effect would be that the claimant was unable to take the claim any further. It also


proposes that deposits would be imposed only in circumstances in which costs awards could be made under the present rules.
2.45 am
Much of what is proposed in clause 16 is a sorry departure from the present system. There is no evidence that the present system is being abused and Opposition Members—of whom there are still a number here even at this late hour—regret very much that a fee is to be introduced into our system. Given that that is the case, and although it is perhaps optimism triumphing over reality, given the Government's attitude to any Opposition amendments, we tried to propose a halfway house, and to put some parameters and restraints on the Government's proposals. It is in that spirit that we move the amendments.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has raised a number of points on the amendments and I will do my best to deal with them.
Clause 16 as drafted gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations authorising pre-hearing reviews to be carried out either by the tribunal chairman or by the full tribunal, which would obviously include the lay members as well as the chairman. That is also the effect of amendment No. 35, so to that extent it is difficult to see the difference in substance between the amendment and the Government's proposal, although, if I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he was concerned that there was reference in clause 16 to "such person", which may have raised a doubt in his mind about what was intended. We are advised that that formula has to be used because the regional chairman might be sitting and the regional chairman is separately defined under the regulations, or the president himself could be referred to. That is why that formulation is used. Clause 16, as drafted, already does what the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Amendment No. 36 is, as the hon. Gentleman said, a halfway house. It proposes to reduce from £150 to £50 the maximum deposit for a pre-hearing to be ordered. I dare say that the hon. Gentleman would think it rather ungenerous of me to say that if he is prepared to concede the principle of a deposit, our judgment is as good as his. He would say that he does not concede the principle, but lives in the real and practical world and hopes that Ministers do as well. If one concedes, if only for the purposes of the argument, that some deposit is appropriate, it is a question of where one draws the line. Neither £50 nor £150 is a princely sum. In each case, the sum would be only a maximum. There is no question of a tribunal being under an obligation to order a sum at all. Although it may seem to be the judgment of Solomon, we take the view that £150 is right.
Amendment No. 37 seems to us to be unnecessary because virtually all the matters that it covers would be covered by regulations which are due to be made under clause 16 in any event.
The Government take the view that amendment No. 38 unduly fetters the discretion of the Secretary of State in determining the size of the maximum deposit. It would also be unnecessarily complicated. I accept that the amendment is ingenious, but it is difficult to see the logic in trying to enshrine in law a mathematical relationship between the compensatory award maximum and the deposit maximum.
Clause 16 allows the Secretary of State from time to time to alter the limit on the amount of a deposit, and clause 21(4) makes any order altering the limit subject to the negative resolution procedure. Amendment No. 39 would provide that the draft of any such order would have to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament. This debate echoes a number of debates that we had in Committee about whether the affirmative or the negative procedure should be used. Someone—it may even have been me—suggested that such debates entailed an element of ritual and that, in the unlikely event that our roles were ever reversed, Ministers might one day be Opposition Back Benchers and arguing the opposite view. Lively though my imagination is, I cannot encompass that prospect at this time in the morning.
The Government regard this as precisely the sort of matter that should be dealt with by the negative resolution procedure. Therefore, while I should have liked to tell the hon. Gentleman that his optimism would triumph over his experience, I cannot recommend his amendments to the House.

Ms. Richardson: It is rather unfair of the Minister to hint that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was abandoning the principle of opposition to the £150 deposit. I do not think that he was. He was at pains to say that this was an honest attempt to arrive at a halfway house. Let me say to him and to the Government that the Opposition Members also stick by the principle that we are opposed to the £150 deposit. Like the hon. Gentleman, we should have preferred the clause to he deleted. Nevertheless, the amendments represent a good way of rehearsing our extensive arguments in Committee and of placing on record the opposition that remains to the concept of a deposit of the size envisaged in the Bill.
It is all very well for the Minister, in a fairly light-hearted way, to dismiss £150 as not much. To the majority of working people, £150 is quite a lot. To many people, £50 is quite a lot. To suggest that it does not amount to much more than a row of beans—I am not saying that the Minister used those words; he did not—is to underestimate its importance. I remind the Minister that during the consultation procedure a number of prestigious bodies expressed their opposition. The British Institute of Management was not totally opposed to a deposit but argued that it would be much more of an obstacle for an employee than for an employer. We can all echo that. The BIM also suggested that employers might automatically apply for an order.
The Engineering Employers Federation felt that, although the £150 deposit would not deter those backed by a union, it might deter—would deter—those who were not unionised but
might have a genuine case".
Given the Government's antipathy to unions, one would have expected them to give a little thought to those who are not unionised.
The TUC, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux were wholeheartedly against the £150 and the Government would have been wiser to listen to their advice. As it is, the Government will oppose the amendments, which will be lost in the mists of time—whatever time it is now. We shall have to see what happens. If statistics are kept after the


provision for a deposit becomes law, I am sure that they will show that many genuine cases will not be taken to a tribunal.
We must recognise that not only will many of those faced with a £150 demand not be able to pay it, but that many people will not even take their cases to a tribunal because of the possibility of that deposit being demanded. Although the Minister has said that it is a deposit and that £150 is the maximum, it will deter people.
We want a system of industrial democracy that does not result in any employee, whether or not unionised, being deterred from pursuing his or her rights as he or she perceives them. The clause is just another way of the Government putting blocks in the way of the employed and giving an advantage to the employers. We should prefer the clause to be deleted but, given that that is not a possibility because our amendment was not selected, we shall wholeheartedly support these amendments.

Mr. Haynes: I am not surprised that we are debating such important amendments, which I welcome. The Opposition are opposed to any deposit. It is immoral of the Government to impose a deposit of £150. Ministers have their heads in the clouds; they do not have their feet on the ground; they do not understand the problems of low-paid workers. The Government do not want workers to belong to a trade union and encourage them not to be.
When I was a trade union official in the mining industry in the Nottingham area, members made their contributions each week and that entitled them to certain benefits. If the deposit had been law then, one benefit would have been that the union would probably have paid the f150. That is what happens in the trade union movement. The Ministers belonged to a closed shop in their previous professions and are, perhaps, still associated with those professional organisations. I cannot understand why they argue against the closed shop in trade unions. The closed shop means protection for members. The Government are imposing a penalty of £150 on workers who have had a shoddy deal from their employers and have had to take their cases to an industrial tribunal. It is immoral, although I am no longer surprised by many of the Government's actions.
3 am
The Government encourage low pay for workers. We have plenty of low-paid workers. If a worker is not in a trade union, he will have to find £150, probably just after losing his job. Where does the Minister get his ideas from? Has he really thought this out? He is nodding his head but I do not think that he has thought it out. He has not got his feet on the ground. He has not worked in the areas in which many Opposition Members have worked. We understand fully the implication of a £150 deposit.
It annoys me when I hear the Secretary of State for Social Security shooting his mouth off about how well off people are. We have poverty in this nation. We have people on very low earnings. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), the Minister responsible for tourism, is encouraging more and more people into tourism to work for very low wages. If there is an unfair dismissal and the person wants to go to the tribunal, how the hell does the Minister think that that person will manage to get a fair deal? The worker will not be able to go to the tribunal

because he cannot afford the £150. We must remember that there is always the danger that he will lose, even though he has a first-class case. That is why the £150 deposit is immoral.
I am surprised—no, I am not surprised that this is happening under the mob that we have in government. Mark my words; when we kick out that lot on the Government Benches—

Mr. Lee: Never.

Mr. Haynes: The Minister will eat his words one day. He might be one of those who will go and who may have to go back into practice again, with nice, big, cosy earnings in the closed shop.

Mr. McCartney: At £150 an hour.

Mr. Haynes: Yes, representing employers at tribunals, getting rich pickings. We are talking about people in the lower income group who are in serious financial difficulty. It is not funny; it is a serious matter. The Minister should be in a position to find out about poverty. I know what it is all about, as my father did before me. I have lived in poverty; I have breathed it and slept in it. I know how people are suffering when they are not getting the earnings that they should.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—I think that he knows that I am a lifelong trade unionist—but does not he accept that there is another side to the matter? With all the new responsibilities, rules, regulations, restrictions and conditions that are being imposed on the United Kingdom Parliament and Government in consequence of EEC directives, as most of the Bill is, employers will spend all their time going to tribunals instead of getting on with the job of production. The hon. Gentleman's party has new enthusiasm for all this nonsensical bureaucracy that is making the life of industry a nightmare. Does he accept that there is another side to the story and that perhaps something should be done about it?

Mr. Haynes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will not be tempted to broaden the debate.

Mr. Haynes: You have jumped the gun, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand why. The hon. Gentleman has an argument and he is using it and he is trying to use me as well, but I am not going down the EEC road tonight. I do not think it would be fair. But I understand why the hon. Member for—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Southend."] I am talking about the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I know, because he has said it so often before. We have had debates in the early morning on these directives from Europe.
The point is that I maintain my argument and I will never change. The Conservatives will never change, but we will change the system in here—that lot will be over here and we will be over there. We will put things right, and I promise the Minister that it will happen at the next election, because the people outside have had enough. They do not want any more, but they have three more years, so we will have to make the best of it. However, there is worse and worse to come. With such proposals as this, matters will get worse and worse. A lot of people in


my constituency are suffering under the Government, and here they go again—a lower-paid worker must pay a deposit of £150 to fight a case which it is possible that he might lose. It really is immoral.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said at the Dispatch Box only a few minutes before I started to say my piece that what the Government were doing is wrong and that we do not accept that that payment should be made. It is not fair, it is completely immoral, and I believe that we should vote for the amendment. I hope that some of the Conservative Members will change their minds and see the unfairness involved. I am living in hope, I know. If they are honest with themselves, they will vote with us tonight on these amendments. [Interruption.] They will probably not have enough for a closure, because they are dipping very fast. There were 103 at the last count. The Government Chief Whip has a job to get out there and get them in, in the hope that they will win a vote tonight, because at the moment they are on a loser. Conservative Members are going down and down, but we are still here fighting on behalf of the people we represent, especially those lower-paid workers.

Mr. McCartney: They could not raise a deposit between them.

Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend is quite correct. I think that you have had enough of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Haynes: I think that I will stay a bit longer, because they are a bit upset over yonder. The Minister always tells me that he loves Frank Haynes to be called. He knows that I will have a go at him, but I am a different man in here from what I am outside, because in here I fight like a dog for what I believe in—a mad dog too, perhaps. I will fight for what I believe in in the same way as the great grandfather of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) did. He must be turning in his grave at some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has done in this Chamber. The great grandfather of the hon. Gentleman was a fighter for the working class people, especially the lower paid workers. When I was a young lad, people worked in the pits for peanuts. Safety came last and profits were at the top of the list for the coal owners. That is what Toryism is all about. People, especially in this country, know what Socialism is about, and, by God, soon they will get some more Socialism and we will get some more fairness in the interests of the people and not just of certain individuals.
A lot of the company bosses are feeding money into the Conservative party funds, and there is a connection here. I believe that the Minister has taken that point well home. I think that he understands what I am trying to say to him. The message is coming over to the electorate loud and clear. The next election cannot come soon enough, and we will win it. The tragedy is that I will not be coming back here after it. I have enjoyed my time here and I will enjoy what is left. No doubt, in the future I will have something to say to the Minister about his policies.
I am asking the Government to back off and accept what we have said. The amendment does not go as far as I would like, but at least the Democrats are going part of the way.

Mr. Barron: They are Liberals.

Mr. Haynes: No, they tell me that they are Democrats. I am not going to argue about it. The Democrats are going part of the way. Because the Labour amendment has not been selected, we are forced to go along with the Democrats' suggestion. We support them to the hilt. We will be in the Division Lobby with them, and I hope that some Tories will be with us.

Mr. Wallace: I think that the Minister said that if Ministers lived in the real world, hope would triumph—he went on to prove that they do not—but he made that comment late at night and perhaps did not mean to phrase it in that way. It outlined what many of us have found throughout the debate—no matter how reasonable we try to make our amendments, the Government do not meet them even a third or a half of the way.
As for the real world, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made a valid point—

Mr. Haynes: Several.

Mr. Wallace: Several valid points, but one in particular about the £150. We are talking about people not just on low pay but on no pay, which is why they go to an industrial tribunal. That sum may be the maximum amount to be paid, but it is a colossal sum for them. Its imposition may debar people from seeking justice.
I am not always satisfied by assurances from Ministers that "these matters will appear in regulations." If that is so, the Government should have nothing to fear in laying down statutory parameters. I accept the Minister's comment that the term "such person" is necessary to cover this group of chairmen of tribunals. For that reason, I will not seek a Division on amendment No. 35. Amendment No. 36 goes more to the heart of what we have been driving at. Although we would prefer to have no deposit, our proposal is more realistic than the Government's provision.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed, No. 36, in page 12, line 31, leave out '£150' and insert £50'.—[Mr. Wallace.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 106.

Division No. 227]
[3.13 am


AYES


Alton, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Richardson, Jo


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Wareing, Robert N.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


McCartney, Ian
Mr. James Wallace.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Batiste, Spencer
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen






Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Sir David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Forth, Eric
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Neale, Gerrard


Freeman, Roger
Neubert, Michael


French, Douglas
Nicholls, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Patnick, Irvine



Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Raffan, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Redwood, John


Hague, William
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Rowe, Andrew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ryder, Richard


Hanley, Jeremy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heddle, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hind, Kenneth
Shersby, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Speller, Tony


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stevens, Lewis


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Irvine, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jack, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knapman, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Trippier, David


Lightbown, David
Trotter, Neville


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Watts, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wells, Bowen


Maude, Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Ann


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Mills, Iain
Mr. Michael Fallon and


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18

DISSOLUTION OF TRAINING COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 13, line 27, leave out ", apart from this section,".—[Mr. Fowler.]

Schedule 5

DISSOLUTION OF TRAINING COMMISSION: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 26, line 11, leave out ',
in relation to any time falling on or after that date'.
No. 20, in page 26, line 25, leave out
'office or place of business'
and insert "principal office".—[Mr. Fowler.]

Clause 19

TRANSFER OF STAFF EMPLOYED IN SKILLS TRAINING AGENCY

Mr. Strang: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 13, line 30, leave out clause 19.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 24, in page 14, line 7, at end insert—

`(2A) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the continuation of a "Skillcentre Network.".'.
No. 26, in page 14, line 10, at end insert—
'(3B) After the transfer of an undertaking, civil service terms and conditions of employment shall continue to apply, unless altered by negotiation and agreement with the relevant trade unions.'.
No. 27, in page 14, line 10, at end insert—
'(3C) After the transfer of an undertaking, civil service pension arrangements shall continue to apply, unless altered by negotiation and agreement with the relevant trade unions.'.
No. 28, in page 14, line 19, at end insert—
'The Secretary of State shall make such arrangements as necessary to ensure that after a transfer of an undertaking, the same amount and quality of training is delivered.'.
No. 29, in page 14, line 40, at end insert—
'(9) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has established a body of relevant organisations to monitor the training services delivered after the transfer of an undertaking.'.

Mr. Strang: Clause 19 follows from the Government's decision to privatise skill centres, which we deeply deplore and which has important consequences for the staff employed at them, who are currently civil servants.
The proposal stems from the Government's announcement in last December's White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" indicating their intention to privatise the Skills Training Agency. However, their arguments were flawed.
The White Paper stated:
The Skills Training Agency would be in a better position to seize these opportunities if it were to move into the private sector where it could adopt the best commercial practices. The Government are therefore taking professional advice on the feasibility of such a move.
In essence, the Government are free to run the agency as they wish. It is within their power to decide that, and whether or not the agency is in the public sector does not really matter. If the Government want the agency to be run as a commercial operation, they have only to instruct the civil servants in charge to run it that way. If the Government want the agency to concentrate on certain areas where a need for greater training provision has been identified, they have only instruct the people who run it to do that instead.
I make that point because sometimes it is suggested that it is impossible to run an activity in the public sector commercially or efficiently. British Airways is currently operating very efficiently in the private sector under the chairmanship of Lord King, but before its privatisation, the Government gave British Airways a remit to slim down and become profitable. British Airways operated in the public sector, in preparation for privatisation, as a relatively efficient, profitable and slimmed-down company. It could have continued doing so in the public sector. That illustrates that there is nothing in the argument that the Skills Training Agency must be moved into the private sector before it can perform in a certain way. It will do so anyway if the people running it are asked to make it function in a specific way; and if the Government are not satisfied with their performance, they can be replaced by people having the wherewithal and ability to make it do so.
Our main reason for opposing the clause is that all the evidence, including the Government's own documents, suggests that British business has failed adequately to invest in training, and that its record is poor by comparison with its European competitors. In those circumstances, how on earth can it make sense to remove from the public sector a training provision that the


Government can influence and transfer it to the private sector—when the record of private training sector even in the Government's eyes, and certainly in ours, is poor?
With the agency taking over the responsibilities of the Training Commission, a substantial proportion of the so-called national task force now comprises large, private industrial companies. Having acknowledged that, apart from some notable exceptions, British business has failed to take training sufficiently seriously, it seems a remarkable conclusion to put the people who have apparently failed in charge, or at least to give them a major say over the Government's expenditure on training and at the same time to move out of the public sector the skill centres which are wholly owned by the Government and through which the Government can lay down what training should be provided.
3.30 am
The argument that the agency is losing money does not stand up as it is a wholly artificial exercise. The Secretary of State's announcement referred to the fact that the agency had made a profit in some years but had made a substantial loss in others. I do not have the figures to hand, but I recall that it made a profit in 1987–88 or 1988–89. That was partly accounted for by the fact that the Manpower Services Commission was committed to using the skill centres to provide some of the training that it was financing.
In the current year, the gross cost of the training centres is about £53 million, whereas the Government's planned expenditure for the Training Agency is £2,860 million. It is an artificial point to argue that the skill centres are losing money. One could stop them losing money by instructing the managers to organise the scheme or slim it down so that it would no longer lose money. Alternatively, one could acknowledge that the Government are spending a substantial sum of money on training and that it may make sense to use some of that money to provide opportunities at the skill centres that are not available elsewhere and cost money. The argument that the skill centres should necessarily be profitable is not valid.
The skill centres have existed for a long time. They first came into being in the aftermath of the first world war. They have a good record. Some excellent people work in the skill centres, which have provided tremendous opportunities and valuable training, particularly for the long-term unemployed. Many women have been able to acquire the necessary skills for jobs which are usually carried out by men, and we would all encourage that. Skill centres can be proud of the contribution which they have made to training in Britain over the years.
That is not to say that one should accept the current arrangements or concede that the training courses and facilities which they currently provide are the right ones for the 1990s. However, while they are part of the Civil Service, and part of the Government, at least the Government can decide what facilities are provided in these centres. There is no question but that in many localities skill centres have identified skills shortages and have made a significant contribution to training the most difficult people to train, such as those who have been unemployed for some time. We reject the Government's approach. It is ludicrous for them to argue that they can enhance and improve training provision in this country by

privatising a fraction of the training facilities that accounts for a small proportion of Government expenditure on training.
It is clear that training provision will be privatised, and it would be helpful if, in the time available—we do not wish unduly to prolong proceedings—the Minister said a little more about the progress of the management buyout. He explained in Committee that the Government are quite happy that the deputy chief executive, Mr. Bishell, is leading a management buy-out, which would rule out the purchase of local skill centres by local consortia. Is that still the most likely option? I know that the Government are not excluding further options, even at this late stage.
Labour Members should like an assurance that assets will not be disposed of at knockdown values and that the market value of sites will be reflected in their sale price. Under the British Aerospace privatisation, assets were sold for a price below that implied in the overall package. The Minister should give an assurance that sites—the market value of some of which is quite favourable—will not be disposed of at knockdown prices. I have heard one or two suggested figures for skill centres and sites that are, to put it mildly, well below what one would expect the assets to realise if they were sold separately in the market.
We are not trying to impose an undue burden on the new outfit. We are opposed to privatisation, but once it goes ahead it is in everyone's interests that it should provide more training. We are worried that, assets having been acquired, there will be a gradual process of rationalisation and asset-stripping and that the privatised operation will make a reduced contribution, quantitatively if not qualitatively, to training.
Clause 19 is not about privatisation but about the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants employed in the centres. It ensures that when skill centres are transferred to their new owners, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 are employed for all staff. However, because civil servants often enjoy better conditions than they might in the private sector, and because we fear that the service offered by skill centres will suffer, we are proposing amendments to safeguard the rights of employees and the standards of service that they offer.
Amendment No. 24 would mean that the Secretary of State would have to make arrangements for the continuation of a skill centre network. We believe that privatisation will be followed by the breaking up of the national effect on retraining into a service that ranges widely in quality from area to area. The amendment should cause the Government no problems if they are committed to the continuation of national training, while allowing for separate management.
Amendment No. 28 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that privatised skill centres will provide the same amount and quality of training.
Amendment No. 29 would greatly assist the Minister in pursuit of that goal. It provides for the setting up of a watchdog body for monitoring the training services that are delivered after privatisation. We do not specify which organisations should sit on that body, but say only "relevant" organisations. We have in mind a body along the lines of that which was set up to monitor the performance of British Telecom when it was privatised, and feel that it should comprise representatives of trade unions, the unemployed and employers' representatives to


safeguard against the sort of defects that we believe are apparent in the body that is supposed to be supervising British Telecom.
We have advanced amendment No. 26, which concerns the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants who are currently employed in connection with skill centres. Amendment No. 27 relates to their pensions. Both amendments state that they will continue to apply unless they have been altered by negotiation and agreement with the relevant trade unions.
We recognise that the Government have given certain undertakings, and the purpose of the clause is to ensure that the civil servants retain their accrued rights in relation to pensions, redundancy and employment conditions. However, as the Minister said in Committee, after privatisation anything can happen. We want to tie the Minister down more clearly because we believe that there should be some commitment to the civil servants which goes beyond the point of transfer.
In Committe the Minister made a statement on pensions. He said that they
must be covered separately by arrangements in the terms of sale. The details will be a matter for the sale negotiations, but…arrangements to provide for pension terms which, taken overall, are comparable with those that apply now will be part of the conditions of sale.
If we are to accept that rather bland assurance, amendment No. 27 would give it some substance while offering new employers some flexibility. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this or any other Bill that would guarantee civil servants similar pension rights, and they and their unions are right to be sceptical of the Government's real commitment and intentions.
As the proposals stand, anybody with more than two years' service can leave the pension rights that they have accrued in the Civil Service scheme. Employees with less than two years' service do not have that right. I put it to the Minister that one can leave one's rights in other pension schemes after less than two years; so why is it necessary to have a cut-off of two years?
Similarly, we ask the Government to match their words with actions and accept amendment No. 26 on the terms and conditions of employment—of which pensions do not form a part. Again, we suggest that it will be only a matter of time before those rights are eroded.
On the question whether a privatised civil servant will be required to move willy-nilly under the new management, the Minister gave a curious answer in Committee. He said:
The position will remain broadly the same when they move to new ownership but may change slightly, particularly if the network is not the same as it is now."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 March 1989; c. 532.]
Given that the network is highly unlikely to remain unchanged, where does that leave the movement of employees of skill centres?
It may not be unprecedented—I hope that the Minister will say what the precedents are—but this is a remarkable and traumatic issue for the civil servants. There are many instances in the implementation of such a policy where civil servants are given some choice. They can take redundancy or obtain a transfer into another area of the Civil Service, remaining civil servants.
But these civil servants are not being given that choice. They are being compulsorily privatised. The Minister

probably knows already that many of them deeply resent that. Many believe in the idea of public service. They want to be civil servants. They like being civil servants and they are deeply angry that, without any warning or mandate, they can be suddenly told that on a particular day, which is not far off now, they will cease to be civil servants, even if they would rather have continued as civil servants, perhaps in some other area of the Department of Employment's general activities or some other area of the Civil Service.
It is highly unsatisfactory that that should be the plight of people in the Civil Service, and I refer not just to those in the higher echelons of the service but to people with a commitment to working in the public service, who believe that by working as civil servants, particularly in this area, they have a valuable role to fulfil.
In the past I was in contact with instructors in the establishments, through the links I had with the old Civil Service Union. Many of those people are dedicated to their task and it is deeply regrettable that they should find themselves compulsorily transferred to a private organisation. We cannot know what the future holds for such an organisation because inherent in the exercise is the fact that once it is sold off, it must operate independently in the market place. Indeed, we have no guarantee that it will continue to provide training in 10 or 20 years hence.
This proposal was brought forward as a new clause during the final stages of the Committee stage debates. We are glad of this opportunity to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. The Minister has an obligation to the House to deal with these issues, but he has a wider obligation to the staff, the trade unions and the country to answer the questions that we have asked.

Mr. McCartney: It is a tragedy that at 3.45 in the morning we should be debating the issue of training in Britain and the demise of a co-ordinated national training effort which has involved the public and private sectors, local authorities and Government in the development of employment and training initiatives.
I was in local government for six years and worked closely on issues of this type, including with the MSC on general employment projects and on the technical and vocational education initiative. I found it vital to have local authorities involved with the Training Commission and private employers to develop the education system so that it became able to meet the needs of industry. I found it an uplifting experience.
It is regrettable that, because of their policies, the Government have tended to withdraw from that type of close co-operation between local authorities and the public sector in general. They are now trying to organise it solely on the basis of the market place, and that will prove to be a tragedy in the short and long-term. After all, our competitors in Europe and further afield are not leaving their training initiatives to market forces. They appreciate the need to co-ordinate and develop employment and training initiatives as an entity to enhance the development of their economies.
It is tragic that the Government should be taking these steps at a time when we have major skill shortages in various parts of the country. That is the case, for example, in the north-west, because of 10 years of decline and lack of investment, while in other areas there continues to be a


lack of skilled manpower even though local economies are booming. The shortfalls in the YTS and the short-term nature of earlier training schemes have left us with a skill base lower than we had 10 years ago. That will act to the long-term detriment of the public and private sectors.
With the abolition of the metropolitan authorities, we saw, for example, in Greater Manchester, the ending overnight of joint initiatives between the MSC and the local authority. Millions of pounds each year went into joint ventures and training at skill centres and places of employment. We have not recovered from the loss of that type of resource.
We have a skill centre in my area. The local authority has developed round it, so to speak, a development company involving a major new initiative of an industrial estate. It is one of the most modern industrial estates in the north-west. Its infrastructure is superb and it is attracting new industry. The skill centre is linked with the information technology centres and a system has been developed whereby the local authority, through its employment initiatives with the private sector, is trying to develop a co-ordinated approach to training in our area. Yet at the same time there is an attempt by the Government to leave all this to market forces.
Market forces by themselves are totally inadequate to deal with the needs of private industry and to link that with the resources being spent at the public level by local authorities and in some instances by Government so as to get the best value for money and develop in such a way that we involve as many people as possible in retraining, the rehabilitation of the long-term unemployed and the disabled and the development of new skills and techniques. This is essential in terms of the development of the economy.
We have realised in the north-west, with the demise of much of our industry in textiles, heavy engineering and shipbuilding, the need to develop a different structure of employment in the region. That means the introduction of new skills and technology, but that cannot be achieved in either the short or the long term without a co-ordinated approach to training and the development of new skills and the provision of resources to identify those new skills and enable people to learn them.
Amendment No. 24, if carried, would give us an opportunity to make sure that, although skill centres are privatised, the essential nature of the network is retained and they have a chance to work with the private sector, local authority and other public sector initiatives. Even though I am totally opposed to the idea of urban development corporations, while they exist they have a role to play in the development of the economy in the urban areas of Salford, Manchester, Liverpool and other such places. Their activities need to be co-ordinated with the work of skill centres and should not be completely divorced and left to market forces.
It is also important that quality and quantity are not reduced. Over the last decade both the quality and the quantity of the training needed to develop the economic base of the regions have been reduced substantially in many parts of Britain. And we are faced with a Government privatising these organisations for ideological reasons and not looking at what is required in terms of a co-ordinated approach to training in the private and public sector.
I look to the Minister to give me some assurances, given the unique role of the skill centres as the dynamo in my

local economy and the overspill effect that has occurred in terms of the other initiatives that have been taken, some in the past directly with the Government through the MSC, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment. We have seen over four or five years the development of such schemes and the involvement of both the private and the public sector, but the Government's proposals are putting an end to all this. There were approaches last year to the TUC about Government proposals interfering with the then role of the MSC, then deciding to get rid of the Training Commission and to privatise what is left of the skill centres. There seems no sense in the Government doing that and then not coming forward with initiatives to protect the present network of skill centres, which, in protecting that network, will protect the work done in the regions by skill centres and other organisations to enhance and develop new skills in local economies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has asked the Minister for commitments on staff, which are important and are similar to the plea made recently about staff in the Department of Energy under the Electricity Bill. We are seeking not only a commitment on current staff, but a general commitment on the level of employment within the new, privatised skill centres. Unless there is a commitment about the level of employment and the quality of the trainers, the role of skill centres will be seriously undermined, as will the training that they provide and the quality and quantity of that provision.
Over the past few years, there has been a tendency in some skill centres to cut short, often at short notice, some of the programmes that are being developed, as a result of cuts at some of the centres. That has led to many instances of the staff becoming demoralised and the people who are trying to take advantage of the schemes have found themselves in difficulties. They have had to come off schemes before they are completed, or are threatened with having to do so. That does not add up to a modern approach to training in new skills.
One would expect such things to happen at the turn of the century, but not with training for the new technology for the next century and not when in Europe, the far east, the middle east, America and even central America, there are initiatives by Governments and industries that will undermine our export drive. We need to develop and strengthen our economy in the regions, yet at this very point, the Government are reducing resources overall and then asking us to accept that market forces will see us through. That is unacceptable.
I want the Minister to give some commitments about the skill centres in the north-west, such as the one in my constituency, and to say what his intentions are about developing and building on initiatives taken by some local authorities—initiatives taken in good faith with his Department. Many capital resources and much ratepayers' money have been put into those initiatives, yet we are now uncertain about the Government's policy on skill centres. If the Minister gives us some undertakings on that, our worries will be eased. I view with some trepidation the decision of the Minister and the Government to opt out of developing a national policy on training, in terms of quality and quantity.

Mr. Haynes: I see the proposal as part of the Ridley blueprint under which the Government, when they came


to office in 1979, were determined to destroy certain aspects of life before 1979. There is a very successful skill centre in the town of Kirkby-in-Ashfield in my constituency, with a first-class team providing training and giving an excellent service. I pay a tribute to the staff of that skill centre, and a tribute was paid by all the apprentices who went to the skill centre over a long period. Yet here, once again, the profit motive has now come into operation. It seems that because of the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), it has been done with indecent haste, without proper consultation with the people who are providing the service. The Government have gone ahead willy-nilly with the preparation for privatisation.
It may be that some of the skill centres were losing money, but the important point is that they were providing a first-class service in the locality. Nottingham county council and Ashfield district council were doing a first-class job in conjunction with the skill centre in my constituency. We had a wonderful connection with the youth organisations. Everyone used to get together to discuss what they felt should be happening in the interests of youngsters leaving school, who could not find work but who were receiving expert training in the skill centre, and in the interest of adults who could not find work and needed to be retrained.
4 am
In addition, we had school involvement in my constituency and in Nottinghamshire generally. Local business was involved. Committees were set up, on which all the organisations were represented. They would feed information in with a view to helping to provide a better service. The one thing that stuck in the Government's craw was the involvement of the trade union movement in skill centres. Lo and behold, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, then Secretary of State for Employment, cut off many of the skill centres and destroyed the centre in Kirkby-in-Ashfield in my constituency. We were left without a skill centre, with nowhere for people to go. We provided a service from people outside the constituency as well; yet, here we go, into the private sector.
The Government closed down many skill centres—just as they closed the pits—with a view to keeping hold of the profitable ones. They did that so they could fatten them up and hand them over, just as they have with electricity, water, gas and British Telecom. It happened to all those industries first, and now it is happening with skill centres, which I maintain are doing a first-class job.
The thing that worries me most is that the Government will get away with it. They have the majority to do anything in this place. They do not listen to Opposition Members' sensible suggestions. I am sorry that I have sung the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to sleep. Perhaps he is simply closing his eyes and listening; I hope so, because Opposition Members have a real story to tell about skill centres.
I am worried about the watchdog body that is to be set up once skill centres go into the private sector. I should like to know who its members will be. Will it be like the other groups that have been set up by the Government? It will probably consist of members of the Conservative party being paid off with a little job as part of a watchdog body

to see that the private sector does the job properly. It will probably be jobs for the boys with blue eyes, because the Conservative party's colour is blue. That is probably what will happen. The Government will look after the laddies who have served the Conservative party over the years. They will provide them with a job keeping an eye on the skill centres.
I wonder, if that happens, whether they will do a proper job. If the Government get away with the proposal in the Bill, all manner of organisations need to be represented on the watchdog body—particularly the trade union movement. If I were a member of the Conservative party—

Mr. Andy Stewart: We would not have you.

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman has woken up. He has been asleep since the debate began. He normally is. [Interruption.] I never interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he speaks, yet he is interrupting me. The hon. Gentleman is helping to close pits in the Nottingham area by voting for the Government's economy policy—[Interruption.] He is still shouting and bawling.
I am concerned about the sort of people who will be appointed to serve on the watchdog body. There should be fair and proper representation across the board. If I were sitting on the Conservative Benches I should probably want management from different organisations to serve on that body. That is only fair because the Conservative party is in power. However, to make the body fair we also need those who represent trade unionists. I fear that it will not be fair if the Government do not go about this matter in the right way.
The Government are moving skill centres into the private sector, where the profit motive will prevail. Will money be properly spent in the interests of the skill centres and the trainees? I hope that the Minister will assure us that the appointments to the watchdog body will be fair and that the profit motive will not prevail over a fair and proper system.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): I fully appreciate that Opposition Members do not accept the underlying policy of privatising the Skills Training Agency. The present position of the STA is unsustainable, and anyone who does not think that needs only to study the Public Accounts Committee report to discover the true position. It broke approximately even in 1987, but in the remainder of the past five years it spent a great deal more than its income. As the PAC pointed out, it has been subsidised surreptitiously by the MSC and the Training Commission, and the PAC rightly said that that should not continue.
I was asked about the progress of the management buy-out. I understand that the initiative led by Mr. Bishell is proceeding. All contacts with potential purchasers—some 40 organisations have expressed interest—are being handled by Deloittes, which is advising the Government on the sale. I am not, therefore, in a position to comment on the individual prospective purchasers. Our position on the management buyout remain that which has been stated by myself and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Our professional advisers are preparing the necessary documents for the sale of assets, which include an up-to-date assessment of the value of every property. My


right hon. Friend gave a clear assurance to the House on 13 March that the Government would share in any development gains in the years immediately following the sale, and we propose to make provision for that. First we must get a valuation of all the properties. That is being done for us, following a competitive tender, by King and Company, which is advising on the property aspects of the sale.
Clause 19 and most of the amendments relate to the protection of the staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained at the time of the announcement that he would table what has turned out to be clause 19. The purpose is to ensure that the staff of the STA are protected by the application of the Transfer to Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. That is basically what the clause does.
My right hon. Friend also undertook to ensure through the contract of sale that all staff who transferred into the private sector are satisfactorily covered by pension arrangements. I am happy to repeat that undertaking in response to amendment No. 27.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) referred to haste. We also heard references to the morale of the STA staff. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that it is very important that we should end the uncertainty that has hung over the STA not only since the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the White Paper to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) drew attention, but for a number of years because of its position. In the interests of the staff, apart from anything else, we should progress matters as fast as possible. That is an important aspect for us all to bear in mind.
In his statement my right hon. Friend also made it clear that we want to preserve as many skill centres as we can to provide a national network. We agree with the Public Accounts Committee that there is no case for subsidising the skill centres. That is particularly so when about one third of them are seriously under-utilised. At the same time, we are anxious to make it clear that we are selling a training business. We are interested only in bids from people who want to run an effective training business. It is on that basis that we shall consider the bids. We want to see a continuing skill centre network in the private sector.
We believe that it would he wrong to set in aspic the present amount and quality of training, as amendment No. 28 suggests. It seeks to permit no change at all, although I gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that that is not entirely what he had in mind. I have already made it clear that removing clause 19 from the Bill, as amendment No. 23 seeks, would not prevent the sale of the skill centres. The clause safeguards the position of staff who transfer with the business. It is similar to provisions that have been included in many of the previous privatisations. It is important to make clear what it does.
The terms and conditions of employment and the collective agreements that apply at the time of transfer will be continued by regulations with the new employer. After the transfer, changes to the position that exists at that time will be a matter for agreement through the normal processes of collective bargaining, but it is not a case of anything happening then regardless, as was suggested.
There is no compulsion on either side to reach a new agreement. If both sides are happy with the arrangements as they stand at the time of transfer, the same conditions

will continue. The process of reaching a fresh agreement is voluntary on both sides. Until then, the clause and the regulations will ensure that the existing arrangements will continue. Amendment No. 26 therefore becomes unnecessary.
On amendment No. 27, I have already mentioned that occupational pensions are excluded from the Transfer to Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. They are not covered by what I have just said. However, I have referred also to the undertaking which has clearly been given not only by myself, but by the Secretary of State.
4.15 am
Amendment No. 29 provides for some sort of monitoring. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Ashfield who or what sort of person would be involved in the monitoring, because it is not our proposal. It is the proposal contained in amendment No. 29, which was moved by the Opposition. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was suspicious about who might be put on such a board and we might share that concern. However, it appears that amendment No. 29, in providing for such monitoring, displays a prejudiced view of the private sector. After all, the essential condition for success in the private sector is to provide what the customer wants to buy. The STA's potential customers will not want to purchase inadequate training that does not meet their needs. The customer is, in fact, the best monitor, and to satisfy him is what we are seeking to achieve.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned TVEI, which does not really come into the amendment, but it is not for me to quarrel with that. However, in passing I assure him that TVEI certainly continues to develop and has a much larger budget than the STA—and a rising one. The Government are spending far more on training across the board than our predecessors did 10 years ago. We are, of course, developing the system. I do not always expect Opposition Members to like what we are doing, but to suggest that we have decreased the Government's involvement in training, including financially, when compared with 10 years ago, is entirely wrong. To speak as if the STA was the only public sector element in training and education is wrong. It is one, and, as the House knows, we are proposing to change its arrangements.
We believe that the skill centres can best serve the training needs in all parts of the country by becoming more competitive and more viable training businesses, with a clear commercial focus and the ability to compete on level terms with other providers of training. However, it is important that the staff who transfer to the private sector have proper protection, which is what clause 19 achieves. I believe that it should stand unamended.

Mr. Strang: It goes without saying that we are not persuaded by the Government's arguments, and we certainly will want to vote on the first amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 113.

Division No. 228]
[4.17 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Dixon, Don
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Derek
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)






Meale, Alan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Richardson, Jo



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mr. Frank Haynes.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lilley, Peter


Alton, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Amos, Alan
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Maclean, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Ashby, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Baldry, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis


Batiste, Spencer
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boswell, Tim
Miller, Sir Hal


Bottomley, Peter
Mills, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bright, Graham
Mitchell, Sir David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moss, Malcolm


Chapman, Sydney
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Neale, Gerrard


Cope, Rt Hon John
Neubert, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholls, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Durant, Tony
Norris, Steve


Favell, Tony
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fishburn, John Dudley
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Raffan, Keith


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Redwood, John


Freeman, Roger
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


French, Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ryder, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gregory, Conal
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Speller, Tony


Hague, William
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Summerson, Hugo


Hanley, Jeremy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Harris, David
Thurnham, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Heddle, John
Trippier, David


Hind, Kenneth
Trotter, Neville


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Waller, Gary


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Irvine, Michael
Watts, John


Jack, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Kennedy, Charles
Wilshire, David


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wood, Timothy


Knapman, Roger



Knowles, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Lee, John (Pendle)
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Lightbown, David
Mr. Michael Fallon.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 21

ORDERS

Amendment made:

No. 3, in line 26 after 'applies,' insert—
'(aa) an order under section 19,'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Clause 23

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made:

No. 5, in line 14 at end insert—
'(bb) section 19,'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Cope: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill removes unnecessary restrictions and, in so doing, widens the employment opportunities for women and young people. It also contributes to a new national framework for training. It simplifies the regulation of business and strikes a fairer balance between employers and their employees. At the same time, it takes away no vital safeguards from anyone.
It is not a revolution in employment law, but an important and constructive measure which should enjoy the support of the House.

Ms. Jo Richardson: Nearly five months ago, along with many other hon. Members, I sat on these Benches for the Second Reading of the Bill and heard speech after speech from Conservative Members the like of which I had never heard in the House before. All of a sudden, the Government wanted to improve the lot of women: after years of eroding women's rights and opportunities, they had apparently seen the light. The more cynical of the commentators observed that the Secretary of State's personal road to Damascus had to do less with ending discrimination than with the realisation that the votes of women would determine the result of the next general election—and I hope they will.
I was prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt. After all, the Bill was going to allow women to clean dangerous machinery and to go down the mines: what more could any self-respecting woman want? Then I thought, "Wait a moment. What about a universal maternity grant?" The Government abolished that. "What about maternity leave as of right?" The Government are the only Government in western Europe to refuse us such provisions, all of which are connected with employment. "What about improved child care facilities, which are crucial to women who are working?" We have the least publicly funded child care facilities in Europe. "What about parental leave?" Time after time, the Government disgracefully block the European draft directive. "What about equal pension and retirement ages?" We debated that specifically, but the Government say that the position is far too complicated at present.
I looked through the Bill in vain for a major contribution to reducing sex discrimination at work. There was a long-overdue repeal of section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act, but only in relation to employment and training. There was nothing to counter, for example, sexual harassment at work, which is a major obstacle to women remaining in some jobs; nothing to end low pay, a phenomenon that affects women disproportionately; nothing to recognise the contribution to the economy of part-timers, most of whom are women. In the last sitting on Report we moved a new clause that would have given part-time workers full employment rights, but the


Government showed what they really thought of women workers, particularly part-time women workers, by denying them a set of basic rights that are available almost everywhere else in the European Community.
If truth be told, most of the gestures towards women in the Bill have been forced on the Government by Europe. They do not, however, begin to make a start on the fundamental discrimination, which is very deep-seated; instead they have been used callously by the Government as a mask to hide the real aims of the Bill. Having exhausted their attacks on trade unions, the Government have turned their attention back to employees and afresh to unpaid union officials. The removal of the rights to written disciplinary procedures and reasons for dismissal of many employees are unnecessary and bad enough; the removal of the status of civil servants from people working in the Skills Training Agency is a disgrace. Many such employees are following a Civil Service career.
I was impressed—I thought about it carefully only a few minutes ago—when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that many people were proud to be civil servants. That is indeed the case, but overnight, without the option of a transfer elsewhere in the Civil Service, they are no longer to be public servants.
The loss of rights in the Bill, and in much of the legislation of the past decade, is now accompanied by a reduction in the ability to seek redress when the remaining rights are infringed. Lay officials—shop stewards—are to be limited in the paid time off they are allowed for trade union activities. We had a debate about that tonight. It is clearly intended to limit the amount and quality of advice that such officials are able to offer fellow workers. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, shop stewards often assist employees who take cases before an industrial tribunal.
The Bill will allow the chairs of tribunals to charge an applicant £150 if he wishes to proceed with a case. But the most disturbing of all the clauses is that which "allows" young people to work unrestricted hours in factories and shops. That clause is a disgrace. Young people aged between 16 and 18 will, when asked, be required to work more than nine hours per day, more than 48 hours a week—and many will have to start work before seven in the morning and finish after eight at night. They will have no right to refuse to work those hours.
Statistics show that the younger one is the more likely one is to have an accident. YTS accident rates have doubled over the past three years. Young people need special protection. The Opposition realise that, and so does Europe. However, the Government respond by introducing a Bill that contravenes the European social charter. Earlier, the Government rejected new clauses that would have helped the disabled. What a disgrace that they should have been turned down. They would at least have made the Bill worth while.
The Bill represents a missed opportunity. There can be no doubt that the number of young people coming on to the labour market will fall by almost one quarter by the early 1990s. Something must be done, but the answer is surely not deregulation—which Conservative Members cling to like a sinking ship. It will not solve anything. I wish we could persuade the Government to face up to the crying need for a proper training programme, adequately funded and supervised, and offering real jobs at the end of it.
The unemployed need training and retraining, but so do other workers and women returning to the labour market after taking care of their children or of their elderly or

disabled relatives. Such are the initiatives that will provide the answers in a changing labour market and to discrimination against women, which is still rife. The so-called Employment Bill does nothing to provide any answers, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against its Third Reading.

Mr. Wallace: When the Bill received its Second Reading, my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled a reasoned amendment, which was voted on, which stated that, while we welcomed certain parts of the Bill—specifically those extending equal opportunities to women—we expressed regret that the Bill failed to provide adequate protection for young people and diminished many employees' rights.
We hoped that a number of the Bill's provisions could be amended during its Committee and Report stages, but it has been clear throughout that the Government were unwilling to accept even the most reasonable of the Opposition's amendments and insist instead on the Bill being as they want it, without making any concessions.
I commend the first part of the Bill in respect of equality for women. I do not envisage that it will mean a return to sending women down coal mines, as has sometimes been graphically suggested by those most opposed to that. part of the Bill. It is more likely to permit women pursuing engineering courses and who are currently unable to take up employment in mining to do so. That will open up opportunities for women that do not currently exist.
As the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) indicated, the Bill's most sinister provision is that relating to the employment of young people. While we accept that there is a large volume of anomalous legislation, and do not quibble about it being removed from the statute book, the risk is that doing so will put the baby out with the bath water. It appears that many forms of protection that have existed for many years, with good reason, will also be removed. Not only Opposition Members have expressed concern; throughout our debates quotations from bodies such as the CBI have suggested that the Bill could lead to the exploitation of young people by unscrupulous employers.
In passing the Bill, we have to disassociate ourselves from at least one important part of the European social charter. I find it difficult to accept that such legislation can be advanced in the name of progress when we are taking a step back from our international obligations.
The Bill restricts the rights of individual employees in a number of important ways—with regard to disciplinary procedures, time off for trade union duties and the period of employment necessary to qualify for a statement of reasons for dismissal. As we have debated at some length, there is the opportunity for employers to insist on pre-hearing reviews and the necessity for employees wanting to pursue a case to have to put down a deposit. In a number of cases the Government have argued that the Bill is taking down barriers and relieving the burden on small businesses.
However, as it did before Second Reading, the British Institute of Management has written to many Members of Parliament as it looked forward to Report and Third Reading, specifically about the extension of the qualifying period for a written statement of reasons for dismissal. It


accepts that that brings the period into line with the qualifying period for a claim of unfair dismissal. However, it states:
we do not see this as a comprehensive argument in its favour. 78 per cent. of BIM members, when questioned in October last year, stated that the current level of employment protection was 'about right'. Only 11 per cent. thought there was 'too much'.
That gives the lie to the Government's contention that in some way the Bill will lift the burden on small businesses. It appears that a large number of businesses think that the balance is about right.
The Bill does not stem from any real desire to lift burdens but is a manifestation of an attitude that pervades the Government, who consider industry to be a battlefield between employers and employees in a constant battle as to which side should get the upper hand. Quite clearly, they are taking the opportunity to give the upper hand to employers. The Bill is a rejection of any idea of a social dimension to 1992 and greater European unity. Many of our continental counterparts see industry as more of a partnership. The Government totally repudiate that view, and the Bill is a manifestation of their attitude.
As I said earlier in regard to equal rights for women employees, we commend some of the Bill's provisions, but its balance is such that, not least because the Government have been extremely unwilling to accept any amendments to it, have struck with what they want to put on the statute book and have been deaf to even reasoned argument, we shall oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Bill is mean and nasty and therefore is a good reflection of the Conservative party and is very worthy of the Government. It is mean and nasty because it takes away even quite small rights from employees while making sanctimonious statements about extending freedom. A Government who bother to remove the right to written reasons for dismissal and to written descriptions of disciplinary proceedings are a mean Government. A Government that remove protection from young people, which may lead to them working nights and for unlimited hours, are a nasty Government. The Government have done that in the name of extending opportunities for young people, which is disgraceful.
The Government have said that the Bill extends employment opportunities for young people and that it will increase the number of jobs available to them. When challenged to say how that would happen, as the Bill only removes protection and makes it possible to employ young people in conditions in which they should never be employed, the Government said, "The Bill will not create jobs offering unlimited hours, constant nights or fancy shifts." If that is so, why does the Bill make provision for such conditions? The Government cannot say that opening the door to unlimited hours or shift work so as to provide more opportunities for young people to work will not have that effect and yet produce more jobs. That is a completely untenable argument.
I hope that the Bill will have no effect, but if it does it will be no thanks to the Government—it will be despite them. They sought to extend not the rights of any worker or any good employer but simply the rights and freedoms of the worst employers to compete in the worst possible

way. The Bill is bad not only for working people but for good employers. I was astonished by how often in Committee I argued the case of the good employer. I felt justified in doing so because any decent employer will look with dismay at the freedom given to his competitors to compete at the lowest possible levels of personnel management.
The Government have said that the Bill extends opportunities for women. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is right in saying that the Bill will extend opportunities for genuine careers for women, but I doubt it. I do not know whether it will result in women going down pits, but if it does not, it will simply be because employment in the mining industry is contracting. It is an expression of a peculiar sense of humour to extend to a new group of people who have not asked for such an extension the right to work down a mine when employment of people who want to work in mines is being forcibly reduced.
The Bill shows that the Government do not care about working people, or about the sensible procedures of the House. The Government have not made any concessions and they have not felt it necessary to produce reasoned arguments. Their arguments in Committee at times bordered on the bizarre. They have not been embarrassed when they have been caught out with the absence of facts.
We have been discussing young people, and I want to refer once again to the fact that the Bill changes the definition of young people. The glorious freedom to work nights will now begin when youngsters are aged 15 years eight months.
When I asked in Committee how many under-16-yearolds would be affected by the Bill, the Government did not know. They did not even care. Yet I discovered from the Department of Education and Science, the colleagues of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench now, that it will affect more than 100,000 young people under 16. A Government who are as careless of information and fact, who do so little preparation and who, at the same time, bleat on perpetually about extending freedom are a Government worthy of nothing but contempt, as is the Bill.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Government were pushed into the first six clauses by the directive of the Council of the European Community. However, they were pushed into them rather slowly because the directive was dated 2 February 1976 and they produced them in a minimal fashion, as was illustrated by the Opposition's amendments on which we were defeated in Committee.
Those amendments sought to reduce the under-representation of women by arguing for positive discrimination and for consultation on and reviewing of legislation with the Equal Opportunities Commission, which was not allowed in some areas, and to improve compliance with the statutory provisions that we were at that time enacting, and extending the provisions to religious orders, among others. None of those moves were accepted. No member of the Committee broke ranks on any amendment put forward by the Opposition.
Our one success on the first six clauses seemed to be a modest amendment to have the Equal Opportunities Commission consulted when new minimal improvements to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 could be overridden.


that appears in clause 6 which deals with the Secretary of State's power to exempt particular acts of discrimination required under statute. The argument was that certain legislation might emerge that it did not know about and it might need the action in some circumstances to evade what it was doing in a limited way within the other five areas.
I moved that amendment in Committee, and when the Minister promised to bring a reworded version forward on Report I begged leave to withdraw the amendment. That was done, but I have not seen that promise fulfilled. That promise can be found in the Committee Hansard for 31 January at columns 90 to 94. If we are not getting that now, will it be promised in another place?
After the first six clauses in response to the EC directive on sex discrimination, the Government thought that it would be a clever wheeze to present clause 7 which seeks to push women into working in the pits. The one great danger is that women who register as unemployed may be directed towards jobs in the pits, and, if they refuse them, will be deemed not to be actively seeking work and thus lose benefit.
That wheeze sought only to embarrass the Opposition. It was the Opposition who believed in equal opportunity. The Government were having only a mild version forced upon them and were going as reluctantly as possible towards it. They thought that it would be a good debating point—a good turning of tables—to confront the Opposition with a crude version of equality in the pits. I can see no other reason for their seeking to do that.
The Opposition took up the challenge, accepting the principle, given positive improvements for men and women in the pits, particularly ergonomic, health and safety, toilet and lavatory facilities improvements. Neither the Government nor any Conservative Members gave any support to any of those suggestions in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
We reject the idea of putting women in crude and primative conditions. Even men should not be working in such conditions, but the men who work in them in the mines do not want their daughters and wives to work in such conditions. That view should be respected by all. It is certainly respected by daughters and wives in mining communities.
With the "women in the pits" debate we confronted the whole issue of major burdens being placed on working people by the Bill. Reference has been made to the protection that used to be afforded to youngsters between 16 and 18; 75 per cent. of them have been protected in such matters as hours of work, numbers of days to be worked and meal breaks. Those protections are going. How can human beings do that to young people?
Those who are prepared to do it may be ignorant about conditions in the pits, but they must meet youngsters and talk to them about their feelings. Were they not once young themselves? Were they all workaholic whizz kids who were unconcerned about what was going on around them? They may indeed have been like that, for they have no understanding of what life is really like. Youngsters should have better things to do than be forced by legislation of this type to do nothing but work.
In Committee and on Report we attempted to protect the disabled, allowing them job opportunities and hindering dismissals. It has become clear that there is not an ounce of compassion among Conservative Members for women, for the young or for the disabled. Trade unionists are again taking a bashing over time off for

union activities. The only move on that front in Committee came from Tory Members who wish to foist on trade unions still greater burdens and to bash the last remnants that remain of closed shop activities.
The Bill contains other anti-social matters, including the removal of the right of many people to dismissal notices, and there has been a lack of response to the reasonable concern voiced by many people about the functions and duties of industrial tribunals. Rather than develop those matters, I shall conclude by mentioning a matter that we have not debated, partly because until tonight we have been too polite an Opposition. We have allowed the Bill to progress under protest only, being anxious to debate the measure without the threat of the guillotine.
The subject to which I refer is Northern Ireland. Clause 20 applies the entire measure to Northern Ireland by Order in Council, mainly under the negative resolution procedure. If the writ of the Bill should not extend to an area, that area must be Northern Ireland. The House has just passed fair employment legislation applying to Northern Ireland. It received all-party support and was opposed only by diehard Ulster Unionists.
How can there be fair employment when the young are exploited, when the disabled are dismissed as of no concern and when trade unionists are hounded? The way to help Northern Ireland is the way to help the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is by rejecting disgraceful Bills such as this.

Mr. Nellist: If the economy was really going forward, the Bill would be unnecessary. If we were in the seventh—or is it the eighth?—successive year of economic growth, as the Chancellor keeps on assuring us, the Bill would not be required. If we were witnessing genuine falls in unemployment rather than a largely statistical manipulation of the figures, and if we were having a rise in the number of well-paid jobs, the Bill would be superfluous.
The boom that was engineered, particularly in the 18 months before the 1987 general election, is fragile and its time is almost up. Hence this legislation. Investment is low, productivity and production are virtually static and trade has nose-dived. Yet the Government continue with their 10-year strategy of preparing the legislative framework to ensure that when the fragile boom is seen not to be present they will have the necessary bits of paper in place to restrict trade unions as organisations and workers as individuals from opposing reductions in living standards and working conditions. This is the sixth major attack in 10 years continuing that pattern.
As colleagues have said, not only on Report but in the many hours in Committee, this Bill removes individual workers' rights gained primarily during the 30 years following the second world war. What was given by employers and industrialists and the Tory party of those days with the left hand is now being savagely snatched back with the right. It is the cynical disregard of workers' interests in the interests of profit that is the prime function of this Government and of the party that introduced the Bill. It is not about creating jobs or improving conditions but about increasing exploitation and removing rights from individual employees.
The first section of the Bill—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr.


Barnes) has just spoken—comes under the guise of a gesture towards sex equality. However, it is not equalising upwards and improving all protective legislation for men and women, but equalising downwards from the existing protective legislation on the statute book. It achieves equality, not by increasing protection for men but by reducing it for women, particularly in such things as the cleaning of machinery with dangerous moving parts. That shows the interest of this Government. They are not for equality; they are for reducing to the lowest common denominator wherever they can get away with it.
Clause 7 is about repealing the ban on women working underground. I do not intend to repeat the arguments in Committee, when I spoke for an hour and a quarter on that clause alone. I made a promise in Committee because, like most if not all the members, I spoke on the basis of second-hand knowledge, of conversations with miners and their families, without direct personal knowledge of a working pit, although I have been down a couple of redundant slate mines. I promised to spend a day in a working pit before we reached Report and I did that as a guest of the management and trade unionists of the Keresley colliery outside Coventry at the beginning of May. That reinforced in my mind the points I made in Committee about the conditions of work for miners in British pits and the inherent danger not only of dust, chemicals and heat but of the roadways. I travelled along hundreds of metres of roadways that were less than 3½ to 4 ft high. It confirmed all the points that we had made.
What we wanted from the debate on that part of the Bill were ways of improving the existing working conditions of miners, not of introducing more workers into those inadequate conditions. But all the way through the stages of this Bill the Tory party has rejected any amendment to improve working conditions in regard to health and safety, sanitation, heat, dust, chemicals or redesigning of machinery or protective equipment.
Clause 7 was essentially a blue herring. It was designed to divert attention from the way in which the Bill was reducing working conditions for women and youth in particular.
The Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), said a few moments ago that it will open opportunities for women. From March 1984 to March 1988 the number of pits in this country was reduced from 170 to 94 and over 90,000 jobs disappeared from the pits.
We are not here as legislators to discuss abstract rights, to discuss things like academics in ivory towers; we are here to discuss practical legislation in the real world. What was needed, and what was totally absent from this Bill, was movement towards increasing genuine opportunities for the employment of women, particularly working-class women, which would have needed such things as workplace nurseries and ending the tax on them, and improved maternity leave and maternity grants. The amendments and points that we put in Committee in that direction were decisively and unanimously rejected by the Government.
The other major area of the Bill is the sweeping away of current restrictions on the employment of young people, especially in terms of the number of hours a week that they can work. Those provisions are about increasing the exploitation of young people who, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) has repeatedly said, may be as young as 15 years 8 months old. I make the same point today as I made three times during the passage of the Bill. There is not a single Tory Member who would raise his hand and tell us that he would put a daughter or a son of his at 15 years 8 months old into a bakery on nights and working more than 54 hours a week. Yet that is precisely what they are asking the working-class youth of this country to work when, or if, the Bill becomes law.
All through the discussions, we have been told that these matters could safely be left to market forces and negotiation. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) made the point in a stage whisper in Committee. He said that the only promise we were getting from the Tory party on young people's hours of work was that no young person would be forced to work more than 24 hours in any single day.
The Government are doing nothing to improve the conditions of young people. They have swept away the wages councils for the under-21s, they have abolished benefits for 16 to 17-year-olds to conscript them on to the youth training scheme and now they are grafting on this deterioration in hours and working conditions for those youngsters who are in jobs. We spelled out the inevitable consequence during the passage of the Bill. There will be an increase in the number of accidents among young people.
As Nye Bevan used to say, one does not have to look in the crystal ball when one can read the book. Any analysis, especially since the expansion of the youth training scheme, which considers young people at work, especially in non-unionised and unsupervised areas, shows a doubling of accidents. The trend will continue at the end of long shifts for younger people of 15 years 8 months. Responsibility for the blood from the increase in accidents, the amputations and possible fatalities will rest squarely on the Treasury Bench of the House of Commons, which introduced and pushed the Bill through.
The Government see young people as cheap labour. Okay—at 5.5 am, with perhaps a couple of dozen of us voting against the Bill, it will receive a Third Reading. However, we will take the only responsibility left open to us, not only as politicians, but as active trade unionists. We will take the campaign out of this Chamber, once the Bill is passed, back into the trade union movement, and we will insist that our trade union organisations actively recruit young people, as they have done in the past, but in recent years have perhaps not done sufficiently well. To paraphrase the old black and white television advertisements of the 1950s, we will get the strength not of the insurance companies, but of the trade union movement, around those young people. The collective protection of the trade unions is the only barrier to the increase in accidents upon which we can build.
The Bill also weakens individual workers' rights on redundancy, time off for trade union duties and access to industrial tribunals unless people can afford a £150 deposit. It may not be exactly a tax on justice, but there is no other phrase for it.
The Bill also dissolves the Training Commission. That is part of the Government's strategy to weaken the ability of workers to defend themselves and to have free, democratic and effective collective representation through the trade union movement.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston also said, the Bill is vicious and mean. It is an anti-working class


measure. If—or, more likely, when—it receives its Third Reading in a few moments, we, as Labour Members, will have to take the fight out of this Chamber into the real world and to the working-class movement of Britain. We must seek to encourage working people to reimpose on employers by negotiation, organisation, and, where necessary, industrial action the rights that have been legislated away by the Tory party.
The Bill will be passed, but if Tory Members, especially those with close connections with business, think that that is the end of the matter and that once the proposals are down on a piece of paper, workers' rights will be removed and the door will be open to the increased exploitation of young people and women workers in particular, they should not hold their breath. The time is not far away when rights will be reimposed—the right to a decent job, to decent pay and to a safe working environment, for which the Tory party and the Government care naught.

Mr. Cryer: Trade unionists in the textile industry have co-operated in shift working, in changes in working practices and in the introduction of new machinery. They have not received the gratitude of the Government or the employers. They have been kicked in the teeth. Since 1979, 150,000 to 200,000 jobs in the textile and clothing industries have disappeared. The notion that by introducing yet more flexible working and removing protection for women and young people the Government will somehow generate a boom in the manufacturing or service industries is, quite simply, an illusion. The Bill is intended to enable the Government to pass on to employers means of attacking ordinary working men and women yet again—and particularly women.
Under recent social security legislation, people must be able to demonstrate that they are actively seeking work. In addition, the power now exists to require women to take night work. In the same legislative process the Government are arranging for the passage of a private Bill—the British Rail (Penalty Fares) Bill. With the help of the organisation of the Chief Whip to secure the Tory vote, British Rail seeks means of destaffing stations and installing more ticket machines. The self-same women who are forced to take night work under threat of penalties against them will not find public transport staffed by people who can help them in any dilemma that they may face in this increasingly violent Tory society; they will be exposed increasingly to the violence that surrounds them. They will be placed in that position by .a network of legislation that is oppressing them, of which the Bill is an example. On cold winter mornings, when they hear footfalls on the path behind them as they go to the station—Tory legislation has meant that bus services have been sadly diminished—and look for friendly help, it will not be there.
Responsibility will rest squarely with the Tory legislators as they sit there in their smug somnolence tonight, making funny little remarks about the circumstances, in their jokey, contemptuous, hard-hearted and vicious manner. I note that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), for example, finds the whole thing terribly amusing. No doubt the women in Bromsgrove will be pleased to hear that their Member of Parliament finds the predicament in which the legislation will place women in general overwhelmingly amusing.
Clause 10 robs trade unionists of the right to participate in conferences and to attend meetings that are relevant to their jobs and their industry. In future, such participation will depend on collective agreements argued out in each factory, rather than on a national arrangement under which every employee throughout the country knows and understands his position. That is a recipe for industrial unrest; it is being pushed through by the Government as a further attack on trade unionists and trade unions.
The Bill contains some shoddy little measures. Clause 11, for example, provides that one must work for two years continuously before an employer is required to put in writing the reasons why one is facing the trauma of dismissal. It is a shoddy bit of vindictive pettiness towards working people to remove a burden from employers by telling them that they need not write down their reasons. The Government have produced no evidence that the removal of a simple obligation to set out the reasons for the exercise of an employer's enormous power—for the person facing dismissal, almost an awe-inspiring power—would result in the diminution of employment in small businesses or in the output of manufacturing industry.
The Government intend to impose a tax on justice, despite the fact that, once again, they have produced no evidence to show that resort to an industrial tribunal is made flippantly, vexatiously or frivolously or that it is not a genuine attempt to seek justice. If that is the case—and the Government have produced no evidence to prove that it is not—it is an unfair and onerous penalty that people should be asked to pay a £150 deposit for a pre-hearing review. Millions of people struggle from week to week to find the money to pay their bills. It is outrageous to ask them to produce £150 on top of their many outgoings and, for many people, it will be an effective bar to access to justice.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) about the provision that will allow women to work in coal mines. It is a removal of the protection for women and young people. To translate working in the most harrowing and awful conditions in pits as some sort of gain is to treat women with contempt and disdain. At the next general election we shall make much of this legislation and demonstrate to women that the Tory party has betrayed them.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 20.

Division No. 229]
[5.16 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Durant, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Gregory, Conal


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Cope, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hague, William


Devlin, Tim
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)






Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hanley, Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Harris, David
Paice, James


Heddle, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shersby, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knowles, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Maclean, David
Trippier, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waller, Gary


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Miller, Sir Hal
Watts, John


Mills, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Sir David
Wilshire, David


Moss, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Moynihan, Hon Colin



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.


NOES


Alton, David
Richardson, Jo


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Strang, Gavin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Wallace, James


Dixon, Don
Wareing, Robert N.


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Howells, Geraint
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



McCartney, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Allen McKay and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Rights of the Child (UN Convention)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Even at this late hour I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns about the proposed United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I apologise to the Minister for any inconvenience caused to him by being here at this late hour. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
The recent events in China have filled us all with sadness, horror and anger, because the most basic of all human rights—the right to life itself—has been taken away from more than 7,000 young people. Our sadness, our horror and our anger are justified. No one has the right to destroy innocent human life in that way.
Those of us in the pro-life movement, who believe that life begins at conception, feel the same sadness, horror and anger about the 170,000 children in this country who are killed by abortion every year. Their lives are sacred and should not be forfeited because they are inconvenient to their parents, any more than the lives of the Chinese students should have been forfeited because they were inconvenient to the state.
The right to life is paramount and must be recognised as such from the moment that new life begins, at conception. That right embraces the entire process of human growth and development. The constantly increasing numbers of abortions and the growing social and legal acceptance of terminating the lives of handicapped children show that the child needs special protection before as well as after birth. I am concerned that the proposed United Nations convention on the rights of the child will not fully recognise the right to life.
The proposed convention is meant to update and upgrade the 1959 United Nations declaration on the rights of the child, but, unlike the declaration, the convention will have the force of law. Its purpose is to enumerate the rights of children and to secure a commitment from states that they will endeavour to bring their laws and practices into conformity with those rights. The 1959 declaration made two references to the child before birth. The preamble stated:
Whereas the child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.
Principle 4 of the declaration said:
Special care and protection shall be provided both to him and his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care".
The proposed convention, drafted by a working group of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, which had been working on the text for some 10 years, made no mention of the unborn child. Attempts specifically to protect the unborn child in the convention were made in 1980, but opposition from some countries with liberal abortion laws prevented the inclusion of any reference to the child before birth.
Article I of the draft now contains the following definition of a child:
For the purpose of the present convention a child means every human being below the age of 18 years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".


There is no reference to the point at which childhood begins. This ambiguity on the beginning of childhood was clearly approved by the working group to allow states with differing laws governing the rights of the child before birth to interpret article 1 in different ways. The great opportunity to challenge states to improve the legal protection offered to the child before birth by using objective criteria to identify the point of commencement of childhood was not utilised.
Following international protests about the failure of the convention to protect the child before birth, last November's meeting of the working group reopened the issue. On 29 November, a reference to the child before birth was inserted in the preamble to the draft. It now reads:
Bearing in mind that as indicated in the declaration of the rights of the child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1959, the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.
That is the only reference to the child before birth in the convention and even that was inserted only in exchange for the states which wanted such protection for unborn children agreeing to a comment being added as follows:
In adopting this preambular paragraph the working group does not intend to prejudice the interpretation of article 1 or any other provision of the convention by state parties".
It is clear that the interpretation of the word "child" leaves the way wide open for countries where abortion is legalised to interpret the convention as excluding the child before birth. Their adoption of the convention will not therefore be inhibited by the fear that by doing so they will have to amend existing abortion laws.
It is unfortunate that, solely because of their abortion laws, the majority of the delegates of the working group should have decided to omit the important words "from the moment of conception" from article 1. The great increase in medical knowledge about the nature and development of the child before birth in the 13 years since the declaration would, in the ordinary course of events, have made it natural to stress the importance of medical care for children before birth. All countries now recognise the importance of that and make provision for it in their medical services.
It is disgraceful that, in 1989, because, for the purpose of abortion laws, children are treated as chattels rather than people, an important convention on the needs and rights of children should deliberately exclude mention of their needs and rights before birth. Due to the present abortion laws, the convention was unable to deal with the specific duties and responsibilities of parents towards their children before birth.
The effect on children of the behaviour of their parents during the nine months of development in the womb is increasingly recognised in medical circles. It would have been of benefit to all human beings if that had been explicitly recognised in the convention.
The new convention should contain within its preamble a statement on the need to provide legal protection before, as well as after, birth. It should reaffirm the principles, contained in the current declaration, that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration in the enactment of laws. It should reaffirm the principle that a child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped should he given the special treatment, education and care required by his or her condition.
I welcome the Government's commitment to the family and the importance of family life. However, such commitment will not ring true with the general public unless the Government are seen to be doing everything in their power to protect the weakest and most vulnerable member of that family: the unborn child. Therefore, I hope that the Government will seek to ensure that the text eventually agreed for the proposed convention will recognise that a human child is human, both before and after birth, and that human rights—rights which attach to a being by virtue of being human—will attach to a child before and after birth.
Unless that clarification to the proposed convention is made, the impression will be given that the United Nation's commission regards some humans as not being entitled to human rights, and that the commission may decide which humans are so entitled, and which are not. Such an attitude would discredit the commission, the convention and the Government if they were seen to support it.

Mr. David Alton: That hon. Members on both sides of the House have stayed throughout the night and are here at just after half-past 5 in the morning to debate this important issue demonstrates that neither the issue nor the Members who are concerned about it will go away, and that it is a matter that the Government must face. I and I am sure many millions in this country are grateful to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) for having used his Adjournment debate to raise this important matter. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health for having persevered through the night to be here to answer the important points which have been made this morning. I wish to underline those points in my brief contribution, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hyndburn for allowing me to intervene.
Going back, not just to 1959 but to 1948, to the immediate aftermath of the second world war, when we had experienced such massive atrocities on a scale never before experienced by humankind, the United Nations passed a declaration which asserted unequivocally and unambiguously that everyone had the right to life. Over the intervening 40 years that commitment has been watered down, eroded and evaporated as successive Governments in different parts of Europe have become more and more edgy about providing a substantive assurance on the right to life.
During the past 20 years in this country we have allowed 3 million abortions of unborn children. I do not believe that anyone who was in this Chamber in 1967 when the original legislation was passed ever believed that the taking of life would occur on such a massive scale. There are 174,000 abortions annually and about 600 abortions every working day. That is the heedless plunder of our creation and it is not only happening here. In the United States of America, there are about 1·5 million abortions annually, and in China, to which the hon. Member for Hyndburn referred, there were 5 million abortions last year.
In my view, abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse. We should not be surprised that so many terrible things happen to the child on this side of birth when we allow the destruction of the child before it can be born.


When we consider some of what takes place in this country's private clinics and hospitals, it seems that we have turned them into charnel houses. Abortions can take place legally as late as 28 weeks into gestation. The fact that a child that is perfectly viable, or even a child without viability that is clearly human, can be destroyed by being torn apart piece by piece demonstrates that our claims to call ourselves civilised are not justified.
This is happening on an horrific scale, but it has been politely placed out of sight and out of mind. The Minister should not underestimate the potency of the issue. Britain took a lead, some 150 years ago, in ending the international trade in slaves, and the United States quickly followed our example. If today we take the first steps back from this ugly trade in abortionism—if we turn the tide, take the fight to the United Nations and reassert the statements made in 1948 in the UN declaration of human rights that everyone has the right to life, and the 1959 declaration that life begins at conception—I believe that we will be performing a major service to mankind.
This question is far too important to be left to obscure debates held in private Members' time, and be relegated to "conscience questions", which is shorthand for preserving the status quo. The pro-life amendment to the United Nations convention would be a first step towards restoring a rational sense of balance to the debate and away from the status quo. It would recognise that no one has the right to end the life of another. To say that it is our right to choose to take another person's life is a spurious assertion: it is never our right to make that choice. It is merely the ultimate refuge of a selfish society.
The House will wish to thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn for initiating this debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Let me also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on securing this important debate, and thank the Minister for having lasted through the night. If if falls to his lot to reply to my Adjournment debate on Thursday, I hope that it will be at a slightly more congenial hour.
The fact that two Adjournment debates this week deal with the subject of abortion demonstrates the level of parliamentary concern and, indeed, determination that the issue will not go away and must be resolved. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn made the point that there was no proper definition in the United Nations convention of where childhood began, he put his finger on the main weakness of the case for not defining the rights of the child.
If we had defined when childhood began, the case of the Carlisle baby would not have come about. It is popular among our opponents to talk merely about the woman's right to choose, and to refer to "the foetus", never the baby or the unborn child. It is difficult to see that the Carlisle baby, whose case I shall be raising on Thursday, could possibly be described as anything other than a child or a baby. That baby was no different from babies all over the world in incubators, being loved and cherished with all the resources of medical science placed at their disposal. Had there been some definition of where childhood began, it

would have been impossible for its case to occur. If we recognise the rights of children before birth, as we do to a limited extent in this country—that is, we recognise their rights at 28 weeks—there is no way that we can ignore so comprehensively their rights after birth.
There is a second parallel between the Carlisle baby case and the United Nations convention. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn rightly pointed out that, by its refusal to define where childhood begins and to give rights to the unborn child, the convention allows nations to interpret it as widely as they choose. In other words, it condones the cover-up. Instead of doing what most international treaties do—set standards to which everyone must adhere—it says that everyone can do what they like.
The most massive cover-up, which I shall be speaking about on Thursday, occurred at Carlisle general hospital in the summer of 1987, when the mother concerned was not even told that her child of six months had lived; the priest who brought the matter to public attention had his contract terminated or at any rate not renewed; a request for a coroner's inquest, which is usually a formality, was turned down; and a live child was not registered at birth. That is the kind of situation that could arise from the United Nations convention—and I see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, rising to tell me that my remarks are too wide of the debate.
Once we say that there is no need to define the rights of the unborn child and that nations can do what they like, we are saying that the born child also has restricted rights and that politicians, doctors and coroners should be left to interpret the law as it stands instead of setting objective standards and punishing very severely those who transgress them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) graciously apologised for any inconvenience caused to me by participating in the debate at a quarter to 6 in the morning. There is absolutely no inconvenience to myself, but it would be fair and courteous to apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the servants of the House, for keeping you up so late.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) rightly said that abortion is an important national issue. I believe that it is worth debating at 5.30 in the morning just as much as at 5.30 in the afternoon. I have no doubt that we shall be returning to these important issues many times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdicombe) gave me a trailer of the debate on Thursday, in which I shall certainly participate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn on choosing such an important topic for his Adjournment debate. He drew attention both to important United Nations negotiations now under way and, more specifically, to the sensitive issues of abortion and embryo research on which right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have sincere and deeply held views. Although a Minister serves to express the Government's view in the hope of enlightening the House as to the facts of the case in question, we all of us—myself included—have deeply held views on abortion and embryo research, and we shall express them at the appropriate time.
I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks in the context of the draft United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It may be helpful if I say a few words about the convention, which was prepared by a working group established by the United Nations commission on human rights in 1979. The United Kingdom was a member of that working group and played a leading role in the drafting of the convention. As a member of the working group, the Government always sought to ensure that the draft reflected our national policies and the principles of the 1959 United Nations declaration on the rights of the child.
The working group has completed its work on the text of the convention, which is now in its final form after almost nine years of detailed discussion. The draft is due to go to the United Nations General Assembly in New York for adoption later this year. It is the Government's intention to sign and ratify the convention soon after its adoption, because, in our view, it is right for this country to be associated with that important statement of international commitment to improving the health and welfare of children throughout the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn rightly drew attention to one or two articles of the convention, but it is an extensive draft covering some 40 articles dealing with children's rights over a very broad range of issues. I am sure that he would wish to lend his support to the convention in that sense.
Once adopted, the convention will be the first international treaty to deal specifically and over a wide field with the human rights and fundamental freedoms of children. The convention will establish minimum standards for the survival, protection and development of children. The Government warmly support the convention's aims.
The working group has been engaged in considerable debate on many of the issues tackled in the draft convention. Among these have been questions about the extent to which it applies to the unborn child. This of course is closely related to the points my hon. Friend has most eloquently drawn attention to this morning. Participating countries have inevitably adopted widely differing positions on this issue. It was the working group's practice to proceed by consensus, and the views of all contributing countries had to be taken into account in drafting this international instrument. That may seem a trite comment, but this is the way in which international treaties and conventions are prepared, as perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone knows.
It is, in the Government's view, esential that the convention should not affect the right of Parliament to decide on appropriate legislation in the fields of abortion and embryo research. In this we are of course at one with many other countries and the issues which are of concern to us must also be exercising their minds. The extent of legislative protection that should be given to human embryos and foetuses is a matter of great debate and difficulty in many countries, not just in the United Kingdom. We must all recognise that on these issues there are deep and sincerely held, but widely differing, views. It is for this reason that in this country Governments have traditionally taken a neutral stance on issues such as abortion and human embryo research, regarding them as matters of individual conscience.
As regards the law on abortion, the House is well aware that our present legislation dates from 1967 when

Parliament decided to build on an existing framework of criminal law on this subject. Parliament decided on these arrangements on a free vote. The 1967 Act sets out the circumstances in which termination of pregnancy may legally be performed if statutory arrangements are satisfied. The Abortion Act has to be read alongside the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, whose basic purpose is to protect the life of the unborn child except where termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother. It is open to Parliament to alter some or all aspects of this legislative framework. I know that many hon. Members have strong views on the subject, and the matter has been frequently debated since 1967. It is this complex and controversial position which the Government have to take into account in considering the draft convention.
I am very well aware of the strong and conflicting views hon. Members and others have expressed on the whole issue of abortion. There was a long and valuable debate in the House on 16 December 1988 about the unborn child and my hon. Friend has made good use of the opportunity to draw attention this morning to the issues discussed on that and many other occasions.
The conflict of opinion on abortion applies equally to research involving human embryos. Advances in science and medicine over the past few years have made practicable a whole range of procedures and treatments which could not even have been contemplated previously, but as we all recognise, such scientific advance brings with it problems as well as benefits. In particular, as the Warnock report emphasises, it gives rise to many profound and difficult questions of rights and duties, both ethical and legal on which each of us will have our own view. There is, however, one thing on which I am sure we all agree—the need to provide a clear legislative framework in which future developments can take place.
In our White Paper, "Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation", we set out our proposals in this field. Two are particularly relevant to this debate; first, the establishment of a statutory licensing authority to control centres engaged in such procedures as in vitro fertilisation; secondly, to have a free vote on alternative clauses on embryo research in the Bill. One would outlaw it altogether; the other would allow it under strict controls. In that way Parliament will be able to reach a decision on this particularly sensitive issue on the basis of individual conscience.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for that important assurance that there will be a vote on embryo experimentation. Is he prepared to give the House an assurance that the same opportunity to vote in Government time on late abortions will also be provided?

Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, that is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Lord President and others. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention hon. Members' comments in this brief debate. He is in no doubt about the strength of feeling on the issue, and I can do no more than convey to him the feelings of hon. Members who have participated in this debate and their views on the subject. We have made a firm commitment to bring forward legislation on these matters within this Parliament, and I should like to reaffirm that commitment.
I am aware that many hon. Members would like to see changes in the abortion law included in the forthcoming legislation. Their arguments will be carefully considered when the legislation is prepared. I am sure that in the debates on the legislation there will be much discussion on the issues ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn.
The central subject of the debate is the draft convention on the rights of the child. It has been helpful to have hon.
Members' views and I hope that my reply has shown that in considering the position on the final text of the work on the draft convention the Government are fully seized not only of the importance of the subject as a whole but of the sensitivity which some aspects of it hold for hon. Members. We shall certainly bear these closely in mind in bringing into harmony the convention and the legislation in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Six O'clock.